A dated summary of Chinese literary sources

[c***@free.fr]

Sorry if this post looks like Tom's.

Although following the same idea -- trying to clear up the flood of
Chinese quotations -- it is is more an appeal to translations and
in-depth knowledge than to complete a timeline.

Like Tom, I have tried to build up a kind of summary of the recent
finds related to mahjong from Late Qing / Early Republican sources.

(We are not concerned here with 'peng hu' or 'tong qi'.)

As far as I know all these works have been written and/or published in
Shanghai. Some were written in "Wuyu", the Wu Chinese dialect of the
Lower Yangzi (as spoken in Shanghai). They span some 30 years, from
1892 to 1922.

I list them here in chronological order, trying to briefly summarize
for each the main points we have learned.
When more data are needed I have put ** at the beginning of the line.
This is an invitation to ithinc, Cofa, Edwin and others who are
familiar with Chinese to complete our information. To all, many thanks.

Note: I have not included Xu Ke in this list because we already
discussed this source. Also Xu Ke mainly compiles older sources
(without reference) and he is not very reliable.

A few common features seem to apply to all sources:
- no flower tiles are mentioned.
- Dealer pays/receives double.
- there is no settlement between losers.
- the game is called either 'penghu' or 'maque'

Please correct any error.

HAN Bangqing, aka Han Ziyun (1856-1894)
Work (novel): Haishang hua liezhuan ("A Biography of Flowers of
Shanghai"), written in Wu dialect, published: 1892-94
(English translation [by Eileen Chang and Eva Hung]: "The Sing-Song
Girls of Shanghai", New York : Columbia University Press, 2005)
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 13 and 26

* Name of the game: 'penghu'
* Other name: 'Maque' appears only once and it is used to denote the
'maque' set ('maque pai'). (ithinc)

earliest Chinese reference to 'ma que' as connected with mahjong

** Other technical words: ?
** Main features: ?

SUN Jiazhen, aka Sun Yusheng (1863-1939)
Work (novel): Haishang fanhua meng ("Dreams of Extravagance in
Shanghai", "Dream of Shanghai's Glamour"), written 1898, pub. 1903-06
Mahjong quoted in Chapter 21

** Name of the game: 'penghu'? 'maque'? other?
* Other technical words: earliest mention of Red Dragon as "Zhong Feng"

** Main features: ?

LI Boyuan, aka Li Baojia (1867-1906)
Work (novel): Guanchang xianxing ji ("Officialdom unmasked"),
serialized in "Xiuxiang Xiaoshuo" ("Illustrated novels"), 1903-1905
(abridged English translation [by T.L. Yang]: "Officialdom Unmasked",
Hong Kong : Hong Kong UP, 2001)
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 29, 31, 44, and other places

* Name of the game: 'maque' (earliest Chinese reference to 'ma que' as
the name of a game)
* Other technical words: see thread XXX
* Main features: see thread XXX

OUYANG Juyuan, ps. Quyuan
Work (novel): Fubao [or Fupu] xiantan ("Idle Talk in Languid Moments"),
serialized in Li Boyuan's "Xiuxiang xiaoshuo", 1903~05.
Mahjong quoted in Chapter 14

** Name of the game: 'maque'?
* Other technical words: earliest mention of Green Dragon as "Fa Feng"
- Red Dragon is "Zhong Feng"
** Main features: Scoring?

ZHANG Chunfan (d. 1935 or 1872-1923)
Work (novel): Jiuwei gui ("The Nine-Tailed Turtle"), written in Wu
dialect, 1906-10
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 29, 30, 98, 99

* Name of the game: 'penghu' (and 'maque'?)
* Other technical words: Green Dragon is "Fa Feng", Red Dragon is
"Zhong Feng"
** Main features: Scoring?

JIANG Yinxiang, aka Menghua Guanzhu
Work (novel): Jiuwei hu ("The Fox with Nine Tails"), 1908
Mahjong mentioned but domino game Penghu played

* Name of the game: 'penghu'
here, penghu denotes a game played with 105 domino tiles. (ithinc)
This 'penghu' is opposed, as an old game, to 'maque' "which is
fashionable now" (ithinc)

LU Shi'e (1877 or 1878-1944)
Work (novel): Shiwei gui ("Ten-Tailed Turtle"), 1911
"an amusing spoof of the more famous Jiuwei gui [by Zhang Chunfan]"
(Web)
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 28, 29, 30

* Name of the game: 'penghu'
** Other technical words: ?
** Main features: "Green Dragon is called "Fa Cai" (ithinc)

Two post-1911 sources are worth looking inside.

Anonymous
Work (novel): Zuijin guanchang mimi shi ("The Officials' Latest Secret
History"), 1922
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 4 and 7

* Name of the game: 'maque'?
** Other technical words: ?
** Main features:
Cofa : "This gives a very clear example of how scores are awarded."

LU Shi'e (1877 or 1878-1944)
Work (essay about medicine): Shi'e Yehua, 1936
(Although out of time span, I think it is worth have it here.)
Mahjong quoted in the book

* Name of the game: 'maque'
** Other technical words: ?
** Main features: Scoring?
Cofa : "This is about how the game has been evolved/modified over
time."

OK. Can we know more?

Translations needed:
SUN Jiazhen, Haishang fanhua meng (1898/1903-06), Chapter 21
OUYANG Juyuan, Fubao [Fupu] xiantan, 1903~05, Chapter 14
ZHANG Chunfan, Jiuwei gui ("Nine-Tailed Turtle"), 1906-10, Chapters 29,
30, 98, 99
LU Shi'e, Shiwei gui ("Ten-Tailed Turtle"), 1911, Chapters 28, 29, 30
Anonymous, Zuijin guanchang mimi shi, 1922, Chapters 4 and 7
LU Shi'e, Shi'e Yehua, 1936, Historical perspective

As for Han Bangqing's Haishang hua liezhuan ("Biographies of Flowers of
Shanghai") I can easily find a copy of the English translation. When I
have it I'll post the interesting exerpts.

Cheers,
Thierry

[m***@aol.com]

Post by c***@free.fr
Sorry if this post looks like Tom's.

Hello Thierry. Oh thank you, thank you, thank you!

With my limited time available I am unable to collate all the
infomation, there is juist too much. You and Tom have read my mind as
to what we need to do at this point.

A couple of points if I may. Would it be possible to have the sinograms
associated with the particular Chinese words? Also the excerpts in
Chinese would be great and ideally, the translations would be the ideal
situation!!

But I don't know if this is possible?

This is for purely for the evidential merit of each literary source as
I am sure you would appreciate?

I can cut and paste the indfividual Chinese texts that ithinc has
provided us, but it is time consuming.

But I don't have the translations.

Cheers

[Tom Sloper]

Post by c***@free.fr
Sorry if this post looks like Tom's.
Although following the same idea -- trying to clear up the flood of
Chinese quotations -- it is is more an appeal to translations and
in-depth knowledge than to complete a timeline.

Excellent idea!
A bientot,
Tom

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by c***@free.fr
Sorry if this post looks like Tom's.
Although following the same idea -- trying to clear up the flood of
Chinese quotations -- it is is more an appeal to translations and
in-depth knowledge than to complete a timeline.
Like Tom, I have tried to build up a kind of summary of the recent
finds related to mahjong from Late Qing / Early Republican sources.
(We are not concerned here with 'peng hu' or 'tong qi'.)
As far as I know all these works have been written and/or published in
Shanghai. Some were written in "Wuyu", the Wu Chinese dialect of the
Lower Yangzi (as spoken in Shanghai). They span some 30 years, from
1892 to 1922.
I list them here in chronological order, trying to briefly summarize
for each the main points we have learned.
When more data are needed I have put ** at the beginning of the line.
This is an invitation to ithinc, Cofa, Edwin and others who are
familiar with Chinese to complete our information. To all, many thanks.

Good idea Thierry! However I must confess I cannot make any commitment
at this point due to limitation in time that I could spare. I'll keep
watching how suggestions under this idea progress, though, and may do
some little things here and there along the way.

Best of luck!

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[c***@free.fr]

We can see that a lot of translations is now already available thanks
to the efforts of Cofa, ithinc and others (and to my little
fingers...).

Statistics:

HAN Bangqing (1856-1894)
Work (novel): Haishang hua liezhuan ("A Biography of Flowers of
Shanghai"), 1892-94
(English translation [by Eileen Chang and Eva Hung]: "The Sing-Song
Girls of Shanghai", New York : Columbia University Press, 2005)

Excerpts from Chapters 13 and 26 of English version posted (my me).

SUN Jiazhen (1863-1939)
Work (novel): Haishang fanhua meng ("Dreams of Extravagance in
Shanghai", "Dream of Shanghai's Glamour"), serialized 1898-1906

Excerpt from Chapter 21 translated by ithinc

LI Boyuan, aka Li Baojia (1867-1906)
Work (novel): Guanchang xianxing ji ("Officialdom unmasked"), published
1903-1905

Excerpt from Chapter 31 translated by Cofa.

OUYANG Juyuan
Work (novel): Fubao [or Fupu] xiantan ("Idle Talk in Languid Moments"),
serialized in Li Boyuan's "Xiuxiang xiaoshuo", 1903-05.

Excerpt from Chapter 14 translated by ithinc.

ZHANG Chunfan (d. 1935)
Work (novel): Jiuwei gui ("The Nine-Tailed Turtle"), pub. 1906-10
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 29, 30, 98, 99

Not yet translated.

JIANG Yinxiang, aka Menghua Guanzhu
Work (novel): Jiuwei hu ("The Fox with Nine Tails"), 1908
Mahjong mentioned but domino game Penghu played

Not yet translated.

LU Shi'e (1877 or 1878-1944)
Work (novel): Shiwei gui ("Ten-Tailed Turtle"), 1911
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 28, 29, 30

Not yet translated.

Anonymous
Work (novel): Zuijin guanchang mimi shi ("The Officials' Latest Secret
History"), 1922
Mahjong quoted in Chapters 4 and 7

Excerpt from Chapter 4 translated by Cofa

LU Shi'e (1877 or 1878-1944)
Work (essay about medicine): Shi'e Yehua, 1936
Mahjong (with historical perspective) quoted in the book

Not yet translated.

So a lot of work!
Thanks very much.

Thierry

[ithinc]

"Haishang hua liezhuan"(Han Bangqing, 1892~1894)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
100 dollars a base, 1/2 structure

The East won a hand of Pure One Suit of Dots.

Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 80 hu

If the winner didn't discard the 6D but discarded the 7D before, he
would win:
three Pungs: 12 hu
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu

"Haishang fanhua meng"(Sun Jiazhen, 1898)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
50 dollars a base, 1/2 structure

The winning hand: RRR, 555B, WhWhWh 9999B 1B + 1B (Whether the Pung of
White is concealed or not, is Unspecified) (The tiles before a comma
is a melded set, the same hereafter)

The winner gone out by selfdraw.

Total = 496 hu, cutted to a limit(300 hu), no detailed scoring
procedure was given.

Each of the non-dealer lost 15 dollars, and the dealer lost 30
dollars. The winner got 60 dollars.

"Guanchang xianxing ji"(Li boyuan, 1903)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
500 dollars a base, 1/2 structure

The North won the hand by a dicard of the West: RRR, NNN 234C 7778C +
8C

Pung of Red: 4 fu
Concealed Pung of North: 8 fu
Concealed Pung of 7C: 4 fu
Winning: 10 fu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 208 fu

The dealer lost more than two hundred dollars.

"Fupu xiantan"(Ouyang Juyuan, 1903~1904)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
10 dollars a base, 2/4 structure

A non-dealer won the hand: 999B, 111B, 345B, 2277B + 7B
Another non-dealer made the losing discard.

Pung of B1: 4 hu
Pung of B9: 4 hu
Two pairs' wait: 2 hu
Winning: 10 hus
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 160 hu
The dealer lost 6.4 dollars.

Playing Scene 2:
100 dollars a base, 1/2 structure

A non-dealer won the hand: RRR, GGG, ??? ??? 1B + 1B
The winner gone out by selfdraw.

Pung of Red: 4 hu
Pung of Green: 4 hu
Winning with 1B forming the pair by selfmake: 14 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu
The dealer lost 35.2 dollars.

"Jiu wei gui"(Zhang Chunfan, 1908~1911)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure

The West won the hand: WWW, 222C WhWhWh RR 99C + R
The East made the losing discard.

The East lost more than one base(probably 1200 hu).

Playing Scene 2:
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure

The East won the hand: EEE, WWW, SSS, ???C N + N

Four Winds: 3 doubles
Total = limit

The East won about three and a half bases.

Playing Scene 3:
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure

The East thought she had won the hand(but intercepted instead)：WhWhWh,
777B 888B EE 11B + E

All Pungs: 1 double
Total = limit

"Shi wei gui"(Lu Shi'e, 1911)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
The winning hand: 2333344555667C + 1C

Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 80 hu

If the winner didn't discard the 6C but discarded the 7C before, he
would win:
Pung of 3C: 4 hu
Pung of 5C: 4 hu
Pung of 6C: 4 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu

This scene is quite alike with the one in "Haishang hua liezhuan".

"Zuijin guanchang mimi shi"(Anonymous, 1922)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
The East won the hand on the supplement tile after a concealed kong of
9D. His hand was Pure One Suit of Dots and won a limit.
If the left of the winner didn't made a Pung of 3C, the winner would
not draw the 4th 9D to make a concealed kong and would at most win(if
he would win finally):
Concealed Pung of 9D: 8 hu
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 144 hu

"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

Playing Scene 2:
The East won the hand by discard: NNN, 123D, WWW EE SS + E
It's a Four Winds. The hand was counted as a limit.

Note: after he declared winning, someone asked who was the dealer and
the winner answered he was and the hand was indeed a Four Winds. From
the article, if he won on a South, he would only win half a limit.

[ithinc]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6zzwmv_0fdqrvb

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by ithinc
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6zzwmv_0fdqrvb

Good work Ithinc! And one more: Could you also include Chinese for the
title/name of articles/books/authors?

Thanks,

[ithinc]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by ithinc
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6zzwmv_0fdqrvb

Good work Ithinc! And one more: Could you also include Chinese for the
title/name of articles/books/authors?

OK, it's added. I find Google Docs much useful for sharing documents
online, especially when collaboration writing is needed.

ithinc

[m***@aol.com]

Post by ithinc

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by ithinc
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6zzwmv_0fdqrvb

Good work Ithinc! And one more: Could you also include Chinese for the
title/name of articles/books/authors?

OK, it's added. I find Google Docs much useful for sharing documents
online, especially when collaboration writing is needed.

Hello ithinc. Please accept my thanks as well. I was trying to collate
all the info but it was taking so much time. You have done me a great
service. If I refer to this information in any article etc, I will
certainly reference your name.

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Great work ithinc.

Concerning the game's name in many occurrences:

叉麻雀, cha ma que

Shouldn't it be that "ma que" is the name of the game (noun)
and "cha" the verb for the action of playing the game?
Isn't "叉" merely the "simplified Chinese" character for "搓"
(referring to the action of shuffling the tiles)?

I should have been verifying this myself by looking at the contexts,
but it's not easy for me to locate so many texts and go through
them all ...

Post by ithinc
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd6zzwmv_0fdqrvb

[ithinc]

Hello,

Post by Alan Kwan
叉麻雀, cha ma que
Shouldn't it be that "ma que" is the name of the game (noun)
and "cha" the verb for the action of playing the game?
Isn't "叉" merely the "simplified Chinese" character for "搓"
(referring to the action of shuffling the tiles)?

You're right, of course, that "cha" is a verb and "ma que" is a noun.
But in my opinion, the noun "ma que" had not gain a status to denote
the game. When used, "ma que" often denoted the played instrument.

"叉 cha" is definitely not "搓 cuo". I had the same idea as you when I
first heard this word. In fact, "搓麻将" is a more late word than "叉麻雀".
"叉 cha" is still being used in Wu Dialect.

Post by Alan Kwan
I was trying to collate
all the info but it was taking so much time. You have done me a great
service. If I refer to this information in any article etc, I will
certainly reference your name.

You can use it at your will. Inform me if you find some errors or
questions in it.

ithinc

[Alan Kwan]

Thanks for your summary. Great work!

We can see that, the earlier versions look like Haibara scoring (except possibly
for side settlements), while the later versions have some features added
('inflation').

Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Post by ithinc
"Haishang hua liezhuan"(Han Bangqing, 1892~1894)
===========================================
100 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The East won a hand of Pure One Suit of Dots.
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 80 hu

The 3 doubles are of course for Pure One-Suit.

Post by ithinc
If the winner didn't discard the 6D but discarded the 7D before, he
three Pungs: 12 hu
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu

Based on other info in the passage (which tiles he is calling for, etc.),
this is probably the exact same hand as the one in "Shi wei gui" quoted below.
Perhaps the latter copied from the former?

Post by ithinc
"Haishang fanhua meng"(Sun Jiazhen, 1898)
===========================================
50 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The winning hand: RRR, 555B, WhWhWh 9999B 1B + 1B (Whether the Pung of
White is concealed or not, is Unspecified) (The tiles before a comma
is a melded set, the same hereafter)
The winner gone out by selfdraw.
Total = 496 hu, cutted to a limit(300 hu), no detailed scoring
procedure was given.

4 for R
2 for 5B
8 for Wh
32 for 9B
4 for all-pung hand
2 for single call (1B)
10 for winning
--
62 fu total

1 faan for R
1 faan for Wh
1 faan for Mixed One-Suit

62 x 8 = 496

Post by ithinc
"Guanchang xianxing ji"(Li boyuan, 1903)
===========================================
500 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The North won the hand by a dicard of the West: RRR, NNN 234C 7778C +
8C
Pung of Red: 4 fu
Concealed Pung of North: 8 fu
Concealed Pung of 7C: 4 fu
Winning: 10 fu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 208 fu

The three doubles are Red, seat wind, and Mixed One-Suit.

Post by ithinc
"Fupu xiantan"(Ouyang Juyuan, 1903~1904)
===========================================
10 dollars a base, 2/4 structure
A non-dealer won the hand: 999B, 111B, 345B, 2277B + 7B
Another non-dealer made the losing discard.
Pung of B1: 4 hu
Pung of B9: 4 hu
Two pairs' wait: 2 hu
Winning: 10 hus
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 160 hu
The dealer lost 6.4 dollars.

3 doubles for Pure One-Suit.

Post by ithinc
100 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
A non-dealer won the hand: RRR, GGG, ??? ??? 1B + 1B
The winner gone out by selfdraw.
Pung of Red: 4 hu
Pung of Green: 4 hu
Winning with 1B forming the pair by selfmake: 14 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu
The dealer lost 35.2 dollars.

Probably a third double for Mixed One-Suit.

Here, 2 fu was added for self-draw, while apparently not for the
hand in Haishang fanhua meng. Perhaps it was introduced some time in between
the two writings?

Post by ithinc
"Jiu wei gui"(Zhang Chunfan, 1908~1911)
===========================================
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure
The West won the hand: WWW, 222C WhWhWh RR 99C + R
The East made the losing discard.
The East lost more than one base(probably 1200 hu).

A limit hand for the 4 faan (Red, seat wind, Mixed One-Suit, All Triplets).
Recordedly (as below) All Triplets had already been inflated to 1 faan then.
Did the text actually say the hand included the White triplet?

Post by ithinc
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure
The East won the hand: EEE, WWW, SSS, ???C N + N
Four Winds: 3 doubles
Total = limit

Haibara's definition of Four Winds hand (with seat wind triplet).

Post by ithinc
50 dollars a base, 2/4 structure
The East thought she had won the hand(but intercepted instead)��WhWhWh,
777B 888B EE 11B + E
All Pungs: 1 double
Total = limit

4 faan for White, seat wind, Mixed One-Suit, All Triplets.

Post by ithinc
"Shi wei gui"(Lu Shi'e, 1911)
===========================================
The winning hand: 2333344555667C + 1C
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 80 hu
If the winner didn't discard the 6C but discarded the 7C before, he
Pung of 3C: 4 hu
Pung of 5C: 4 hu
Pung of 6C: 4 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu
This scene is quite alike with the one in "Haishang hua liezhuan".

Probably identical.

Post by ithinc
"Zuijin guanchang mimi shi"(Anonymous, 1922)
===========================================
The East won the hand on the supplement tile after a concealed kong of
9D. His hand was Pure One Suit of Dots and won a limit.
If the left of the winner didn't made a Pung of 3C, the winner would
not draw the 4th 9D to make a concealed kong and would at most win(if
Concealed Pung of 9D: 8 hu
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 144 hu

Everything is familiar.

Post by ithinc
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

16 for R
8 for Wh
4 for 9D

2 faan for the dragons.

Post by ithinc
The East won the hand by discard: NNN, 123D, WWW EE SS + E
It's a Four Winds. The hand was counted as a limit.
Note: after he declared winning, someone asked who was the dealer and
the winner answered he was and the hand was indeed a Four Winds. From
the article, if he won on a South, he would only win half a limit.

At that time, they had not only side settlements, but also "Small Four Winds"
for half limit. The definition of Big Four Winds was still the old one, while a
pair of seat wind plus triplets of the other three winds would constitute "Small
4W".

----

Nothing in these novels contradicted Haibara (taking into account the inflation
process), except for side settlements. We can say that there were no records of
side settlements for that period, and hence, it was possible that side
settlements were absent then; but these were novels, not even "mahjong novels",
and their omission of this detail was /not definite evidence/ that the feature
was indeed absent. Newspaper baseball reports rarely mention anything
suggesting "if you already have two strikes, foul balls count nothing", even
though this rule is universal.

There was no suggestion anywhere of omitting triplet-point counting, nor of
higher faan values for One-Suit. Not even of a higher basic point for winning.
Consequently no trace of HKOS at all in these novels. (Don't try to argue that
lack of side settlements was a "HKOS feature". HKOS features couldn't exist [as
"HKOS features"] when HKOS itself clearly didn't exist.)

This collection of novels do seem a lot more credible than the confused
"field notes" (which was not a rules document intentionally published as a
rules document) of a foreigner.

[m***@aol.com]

On Mar 17, 12:26 pm, Alan Kwan <***@nospam> wrote:

Hello Alan,

Post by Alan Kwan
We can see that, the earlier versions look like Haibara scoring (except possibly
for side settlements), while the later versions have some features added
('inflation').
Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Since my interest does not lie in the subject of scoring systems I
have found your posts, and others on this subject, most interesting -
especially your concept of a 'unified scoring system' as a tool for
analysing later scoring system developments.

I would certainly be more interested in *your* reconstruction of a
unified scheme of scoring based on the Late Qing novels (even if it
was similar to Haibara's) since you would refer directly to the Late
Qing *data* upon which your scoring scheme was based and your
*reasons* would be given for the particular components of that
reconstruction. As far as I am aware, there is no actual evidence,
apart from a very close similarity, that Haibara compiled his rules
from these novels? Further, the fact that his rules were attributed
(by him?) to the 1850's further weakens the veracity of this link.

[snip]

Post by Alan Kwan
Nothing in these novels contradicted Haibara (taking into account the inflation
process), except for side settlements. We can say that there were no records of
side settlements for that period, and hence, it was possible that side
settlements were absent then; but these were novels, not even "mahjong novels",
and their omission of this detail was /not definite evidence/ that the feature
was indeed absent. Newspaper baseball reports rarely mention anything
suggesting "if you already have two strikes, foul balls count nothing", even
though this rule is universal.

The lack of documentary evidence of side settlements does not mean
that they did not exist (as you point out, because of the nature of
the documentation the evidence of their existence may have been left
out). But is this good enough reason for thinking they did exist? Not
for me. This reason only makes the proposition, that side settlements
did exist, only somewhat more likely than the proposition that they
did not exist.

[snip]

Post by Alan Kwan
This collection of novels do seem a lot more credible than the confused
"field notes" (which was not a rules document intentionally published as a
rules document) of a foreigner.

Since the full context of Wilkinson's observations is unknown - hence
the generation of alternative explanations for them (indeed you have
succinctly pointed out some of them in your post dated Feb. 26 5.35am
in the sub thread 'Wilkinson questioned' under the thread 'explaining
Millington's variants from early Classical mahjong : Haibara meets
Millington') - I think the issue of whether he is "a foreigner" or
not is irrelevant as a premise for the argument about his 'confusion'
in this instance (the fact he was not Chinese may be relevant to the
veracity of his observations at some point, but in my view not at this
time).

We just simply don't know enough about the context to begin to cast
aspersions on the nature of the individual involved. Having said that,
because of your good reasons put forward in other posts, I think that
Wilkinson's observations, when mentioned, should be accompanied with
caveats as to the *possible* problems with those observations.

In the same post as immediately above you replied to Thierry's
comment...

Post by Alan Kwan
I'm also puzzled by the early mahjong sets found by Michael Stanwick
in the American museums or as reported by Himly. All these 'wang'
tiles, and no dragons... They are just about 15-20 years earlier.

[your reply]
"How many of those sets were there? Individual sets might have
contained tiles
which were produced for a locality (the maker's and/or the
customer's), and the
scope of said locality, if it was the customer's, might be as small as
one
household or one table.
I think it would be more useful to look at what is common between many
sets,
rather than what is different."

In answer to your first question, there are three sets we have
descriptions for, and for two of them we have photographs. From the
documentation, one is from Ningbo and the other two are from Fuzhou,
not exactly the same locality. All three are dated around 1873 - 1875
and have similar number of pieces and similar iconography (with a few
differences)

But there was another set owned by the Official Sheng Xuanhuai that
was, as far as I can infer from documented accounts of his travels,
collected either in 1884 or between 1886 -1892. That set was
'Confucian Official' in symbolic construction in that it had four
Confucian virtues instead of the four Directions and it had 'Dragon',
'Phoenix' and 'White' instead of 'Zhong' and 'Fa' and 'Bai', as a
group. It also sported the character 'Pin' instead of 'wan' in the
'Myriads of Cash' suit. Then we have Wilkinson's tile sets of 1889.

The two Glover sets had dovetail joints that ran *lengthwise* down the
tile and lack the 'Zhong', 'Fa', 'Bai' grouping according the Glover's
description. The Wilkinson set has a dovetail running across the tile
and has the 'Zhong', 'Fa', 'Bai' grouping . Now the Wilkinson box
specifically mentions a description of the set as having the 'Zhong'
and 'Fa' and having transverse dovetail joints. These two
characteristics are specifically advertised on the box which *might*
suggest that they were relatively new additions and hence this type of
set represented a modification of an existing form of tile set. But of
course this is speculation at this point.

Your points about these sets, there locality etc, have been raised in
many discussions when these sets 1st appeared. The Glover/Himly sets
have similar iconography but different locales and the Xuanhuai/
Wilkinson sets have some marked differences and possibly different
locales. Twelve years later (1901) we have the Laufer set of Shanghai
and it is identical to the Ningbo Wilkinson set.

As to whether similarities or differences are useful depends on the
purpose of your research. Personally, I find both of interest and do
not wish to ignore a single piece of information. But that is my
inclination.

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Hi,

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Alan Kwan
We can see that, the earlier versions look like Haibara scoring (except possibly
for side settlements), while the later versions have some features added
('inflation').
Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Since my interest does not lie in the subject of scoring systems I
have found your posts, and others on this subject, most interesting -
especially your concept of a 'unified scoring system' as a tool for
analysing later scoring system developments.

The playing rules today (apart from the scoring rules) are largely
unified, so it is a safe bet that they have a unified origin.
If playing rules were unified at some point, it would be hard to
imagine that the scoring rules were not also largely unified then,
together as one set of rules for the game.

Post by m***@aol.com
I would certainly be more interested in *your* reconstruction of a
unified scheme of scoring based on the Late Qing novels (even if it
was similar to Haibara's)

If I were to do it, it would be similar to Haibara's, except for
side settlements. There were not too many variables.

Post by m***@aol.com
The lack of documentary evidence of side settlements does not mean
that they did not exist (as you point out, because of the nature of
the documentation the evidence of their existence may have been left
out). But is this good enough reason for thinking they did exist? Not
for me. This reason only makes the proposition, that side settlements
did exist, only somewhat more likely than the proposition that they
did not exist.

Side settlements are a puzzle, because while one can easily suggest an obivous
reason for its elimination (namely, that it's too complicated and cumbersome),
it would be harder to imagine why anyone would want to add it if it was not in
place to begin with. And in such case, said shortcomings would probably prevent
its propagation. That's why I cannot easily vote Haibara down, even if there
was a lack of evidence in the earlier novels.

Most other major (i.e. "standardized") changes in mahjong scoring development
history can be soundly explained. But adding side settlements would be an
upstream trip. Especially if we're talking about the time and place of the
1920's Shanghai "western" circle (Asami's suggestion of where side settlements
were introduced), when inflation features such as 20-point-base, 10-point or
1-faan pinfu, etc. were starting to creep in - they made side settlements less
and less significant, so everyone's first reaction would have been, "why
bother?" Side settlements were meaningful (i.e. worth the trouble) only in
Haibara's game.

Post by m***@aol.com
As far as I am aware, there is no actual evidence,
apart from a very close similarity, that Haibara compiled his rules
from these novels? Further, the fact that his rules were attributed
(by him?) to the 1850's further weakens the veracity of this link.

I need to access his original publication and read it. But it's not easy to locate.

Post by m***@aol.com
We just simply don't know enough about the context to begin to cast
aspersions on the nature of the individual involved. Having said that,
because of your good reasons put forward in other posts, I think that
Wilkinson's observations, when mentioned, should be accompanied with
caveats as to the *possible* problems with those observations.

IMO, regardless of which was the truth, his paper had little importance for /my/
purpose, because mahjong either evolved (in a unified manner) /beyond/ his
version, or it had been evolving in a different direction /apart from/ it. It
could not cast any significant influence directly on any modern system.

Post by m***@aol.com
In the same post as immediately above you replied to Thierry's
comment...

I really should shut up and leave the discussion on mahjong sets to you experts,
and focus on my own area. :b

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan
Hi,

Post by m***@aol.com
The lack of documentary evidence of side settlements does not mean
that they did not exist (as you point out, because of the nature of
the documentation the evidence of their existence may have been left
out). But is this good enough reason for thinking they did exist? Not
for me. This reason only makes the proposition, that side settlements
did exist, only somewhat more likely than the proposition that they
did not exist.

Side settlements are a puzzle, because while one can easily suggest an
obivous reason for its elimination (namely, that it's too complicated and
cumbersome), it would be harder to imagine why anyone would want to add it
if it was not in place to begin with.

Perhaps it (replacement with side settlements) could be easily explained if
the primary purposes of the game were gambling related (this can be seen in
all Late Qing novels)...
- Side settlements did not exist in the original games in Late Qing
- The primary purposes of the games were gambling related
- Adding side settlements would increase excitement to the gambling
atmosphere
- Adding side settlements would make best use of each hand and time spent on
building it

Such development model can be seen and explained in a modern personal
experience:
QUOTE
An experience I have with a card game called "Big 2" might give you some
hint how the score settlement of CC could have been developed. Big 2 is a
game played by four players where each player is dealt with 13 cards. In
turn a player may discard cards to beat cards of other players, with cards
#3 being the lowest rank and #2 the highest. The one who exhausts all of his
cards first wins the game, and collects amount from all other players
according to the total points of all remaining cards in each player's hand.



When I first played this game in/around 1985/6, only the winning player
would collect money from the 3 losing players (no settlement of scores among
players other than the winner - similar to the score settlement system in
HKOS). In a very short period, we found ourselves playing with a modified
settlement system where not only the winning player collects money, but also
all losing players settle the difference among one another (similar to the
score settlement system in CC).
UNQUOTE
[Paragraph (C) at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205_ori.html]

When the Late Qing games evolved into the 1920s as one of the deviation
branches, side settlements became a feature of a particular branch ("1920s
CC-like"). Most original scoring features of the Late Qing games were
preserved in this branch.

On the other hand, the Late Qing games also evolved into certain other
deviation branches. In one of the branches, its original feature of "no
settlement between non-winning players" was preserved while other features
in or not in favour of gambling game play were changed dramatically (e.g.,
fan to point system was developed; dealer pays and receives double and
triplet point counting were dropped) - This branch can be represented in the
form of Cantonese mahjong or Hong Kong mahjong (collectively and better
known as HKOS).

This is my conjecture but is very in line with evidences on hand.

And in such case, said shortcomings would probably prevent

Post by Alan Kwan
its propagation.

In my opinion, it (side settlements) was evolved from no settlements between
non winning players, and was preserved by the volumes of literature in and
after the 1920s. In effect, games similar to CC ("CC family") did propagate
with most of its features being well "preserved" during propagation.
Features were preserved because the propagation (of the CC branch) was
primarily via written instruments; this is in contrast to the branch leading
to HKOS where propagation was mostly by mouth and practice.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
Side settlements are a puzzle, because while one can easily suggest an
obivous reason for its elimination (namely, that it's too complicated and
cumbersome), it would be harder to imagine why anyone would want to add it
if it was not in place to begin with.

Perhaps it (replacement with side settlements) could be easily explained if
the primary purposes of the game were gambling related (this can be seen in
all Late Qing novels)...
- Side settlements did not exist in the original games in Late Qing
- The primary purposes of the games were gambling related
- Adding side settlements would increase excitement to the gambling
atmosphere
- Adding side settlements would make best use of each hand and time spent on
building it

It's not a very convincing argument. The rule is not only complicated,
it's also quite cumbersome. Gamblers usually don't like that. If you
are building a big hand, it is more exciting that you need to win it in order
to score for it.

Post by Cofa Tsui
An experience I have with a card game called "Big 2"

1. How much propagation has your variant received?

2. It should be pointed out that, the "scoring" in Big 2 is a lot
simpler than Classical mahjong scoring. Evidently, your group didn't
find your Big 2 variant cumbersome. Would they find side settlements in
Classical mahjong cumbersome?

Post by Cofa Tsui
When the Late Qing games evolved into the 1920s as one of the deviation
branches, side settlements became a feature of a particular branch ("1920s
CC-like"). Most original scoring features of the Late Qing games were
preserved in this branch.

The circumstances might be right, but I would use different wording to describe
them: side settlements appeared as a local variant to the Late Qing 'Classical'
game, and it received large propagation (to the extent that it got
included in one of the novels, and also appeared in most written rules
documents, especially those in western languages).

Post by Cofa Tsui
On the other hand, the Late Qing games also evolved into certain other
deviation branches. In one of the branches, its original feature of "no
settlement between non-winning players" was preserved while other features
in or not in favour of gambling game play were changed dramatically (e.g.,
fan to point system was developed; dealer pays and receives double and
triplet point counting were dropped) - This branch can be represented in the
form of Cantonese mahjong or Hong Kong mahjong (collectively and better
known as HKOS).

The circumstances might be right, but I would use different wording to describe
them. If "no side settlements" was the original rule, it should not be called
a "feature" (it sounds like an overstatement), but rather, its presence in the
variant should. Hence: 'the side settlements variant did not find its way into
the HKOS developments'. Which was of course natural, since HKOS was intended as
a simplification, in which such a complicated and cumbersome rule surely
had no place.

I would not say that the faan to point system was "developed". It came about
as a natural result of the process of eliminating the complicated and cumbersome
(and of reduced significance, due to inflation here and there) triplet-point
counting, by one of the following processes:

1. Assuming a fixed point value for any winning hand (dropping any triplet-point
counting), and multiplying it up by the faan.

2. Setting the point reward for winning to a very large number, dwarfing
other point sources, and eventually eliminating them for the sake of
simplicity.

Note that in either case, exclusion of side settlements (if it were indeed
around) was a natural and necessary result. If the triplet-points (all points
except those for winning) were disregarded, a non-winning hand would
necessarily receive zero value. (Even if it had faan, the faan
would be multiplying a base value of zero.)

The "laak" complex limit system was not a "developed", carefully planned
system, but rather just a makeshift solution for the problem that
the faan system (with only a simple limit system) broke down in the face of
inflated faan values. Thus the faan to point system was not "developed"
under a master design with relevant intent (i.e. not a product of
someone thinking, "let's make a faan to point system", and then
filling in the numbers in the table), but rather, it just happened to come
up as a result of changes intended to solve specific problems (namely,
the complicated triplet-point counting, and the broken faan system).

And, the primary intent of the development of HKOS was simplifying
an overly complicated game, in order to improve its accessibility
and playability; I don't see much significance of the
"gambling" element, for or against, in the intent behind the changes.
IMO, most /improvements/ in mahjong scoring development history
were driven by the desire to make a game with better /playability/;
gamblers tend not to bother to change the rules, and when they do,
they usually make the wrong changes and introduce 'peculiarities'.

Even in the Late Qing novels, I don't see an emphasis on the gambling
aspect of the game over its game-playability aspect: the players were
often blaming the discarder for poor play, for example. In a setting
where most game-playing (except Go and Chess) was for money, a gambler
needed not bother with mahjong and its complications.

Post by Cofa Tsui
This is my conjecture but is very in line with evidences on hand.
And in such case, said shortcomings would probably prevent

Post by Alan Kwan
its propagation.

In my opinion, it (side settlements) was evolved from no settlements between
non winning players, and was preserved by the volumes of literature in and
after the 1920s.

How did a local variant find its way into the majority of literature,
unless it had got large propagation in the first place? An honest
question: how much copying did the authors do among each other?

Post by Cofa Tsui
In effect, games similar to CC ("CC family") did propagate
with most of its features being well "preserved" during propagation.
Features were preserved because the propagation (of the CC branch) was
primarily via written instruments; this is in contrast to the branch leading
to HKOS where propagation was mostly by mouth and practice.

Mahjong propagation in /China/ was mostly by mouth and practice. There were
few mahjong textbooks in Chinese, and few Chinese learned mahjong by
reading them. How many mahjong textbooks (not novels with occasional mahjong
scenes) in the Chinese language were there for Classical mahjong?

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
Side settlements are a puzzle, because while one can easily suggest an
obivous reason for its elimination (namely, that it's too complicated and
cumbersome), it would be harder to imagine why anyone would want to add
it if it was not in place to begin with.

Perhaps it (replacement with side settlements) could be easily explained
if the primary purposes of the game were gambling related (this can be
seen in all Late Qing novels)...
- Side settlements did not exist in the original games in Late Qing
- The primary purposes of the games were gambling related
- Adding side settlements would increase excitement to the gambling
atmosphere
- Adding side settlements would make best use of each hand and time spent
on building it

It's not a very convincing argument. The rule is not only complicated,
it's also quite cumbersome. Gamblers usually don't like that. If you
are building a big hand, it is more exciting that you need to win it in order
to score for it.

Not convincing if you use the standards of the "1920s CC-like" or the "CC"
after Millington's book. If maque pai (name used in the late Qing novels) is
relatively in the early years of its formation/development (so far we don't
have evidences of any earlier, close to completion, form of mahjong game),
it could be as simple as the "Big 2" experience (see next), IMO.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
An experience I have with a card game called "Big 2"

1. How much propagation has your variant received?
2. It should be pointed out that, the "scoring" in Big 2 is a lot
simpler than Classical mahjong scoring. Evidently, your group didn't
find your Big 2 variant cumbersome. Would they find side settlements in
Classical mahjong cumbersome?

This was an experience of a private group only - more like gathering of
friends. I would be scared to dead if I were to learn of the Chinese
Classical's cumbersome at that time ^_^ However, if Late Qing games ("maque
pai") in 1892-1911 (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html) were in
the early years of its formation/development, its scoring structure could be
fairly simple so that evolving into "side settlements" could be easy and a
natural move.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
When the Late Qing games evolved into the 1920s as one of the deviation
branches, side settlements became a feature of a particular branch
("1920s CC-like"). Most original scoring features of the Late Qing games
were preserved in this branch.

The circumstances might be right, but I would use different wording to describe
them: side settlements appeared as a local variant to the Late Qing 'Classical'
game, and it received large propagation (to the extent that it got
included in one of the novels, and also appeared in most written rules
documents, especially those in western languages).

No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels* (novels
that came to our knowledge so far)! Perhaps when Late Qing games evolved
into the 1920s, the new feature of "side settlements" met the need of most
players in various locations throughout China, for the reasons outlined in
my previous post, thus this form or branch (I call it "1920s CC-like")
caught more attention of foreigners than the old Late Qing form. (See also
next.)

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
On the other hand, the Late Qing games also evolved into certain other
deviation branches. In one of the branches, its original feature of "no
settlement between non-winning players" was preserved while other
features in or not in favour of gambling game play were changed
dramatically (e.g., fan to point system was developed; dealer pays and
receives double and triplet point counting were dropped) - This branch
can be represented in the form of Cantonese mahjong or Hong Kong mahjong
(collectively and better known as HKOS).

The circumstances might be right, but I would use different wording to describe
them. If "no side settlements" was the original rule, it should not be called
a "feature" (it sounds like an overstatement), but rather, its presence in the
variant should. Hence: 'the side settlements variant did not find its way into
the HKOS developments'. Which was of course natural, since HKOS was intended as
a simplification, in which such a complicated and cumbersome rule surely
had no place.

Evidences from those Late Qing novels clearly indicate that "side
settlements" did not exist in those early year games. Therefore,
developments/evolutions of the "HKOS branch" don't need to involve any "side
settlement."

I assume the new feature "side settlements" could have been a hot feature
dominating most game-play in the 1920s, thus being captured in the writing
of most foreigners in that period. On the other hand, "side settlements,"
although evolved into the "1920s CC-like" branch, didn't seem to have lived
long in China. - See chart at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html.

It is my opinion the "1920s CC-like" form had a relatively short lifespan in
local China, where games were propagated mostly by mouth and practice. As a
result of this form of propagation, the Late Qing games continued to evolve
at all times in an uncontrolled manner (i.e., without any written books to
guide its propagation) and into various forms; and the changes were rarely
recorded. This is perhaps why features of the CC games have been so well
preserved in foreign countries while vast changes are seen throughout
China - See the "HKOS" block on right in the chart at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html.

[...]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
In my opinion, it (side settlements) was evolved from no settlements
between non winning players, and was preserved by the volumes of
literature in and after the 1920s.

How did a local variant find its way into the majority of literature,
unless it had got large propagation in the first place? An honest
question: how much copying did the authors do among each other?

My previous paragraph might have had provided the answers, although it is
only hypothesis at this point.

[m***@aol.com]

On Mar 20, 5:17?am, "Cofa Tsui" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello Cofa.
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels* (novels
that came to our knowledge so far)!

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Evidences from those Late Qing novels clearly indicate that "side
settlements" did not exist in those early year games. [snip]

No. A lack of any mention of "side settlements" proves nothing. All it
shows is our own ignorance. By saying it that way, you are trying to
get something for nothing - that is, there is no evidence in those
game's descriptions that side settlements" existed, therefore they
didn't.

But those are only a few novels/descriptions. And don't forget we
can't extrapolate from those few descriptions to all of the Late Qing.
It may happen that someone will turn up another Late Qing novel or
novels in which "side settlements" are mentioned.

So, you could say that for you **there are no good reasons** for
thinking that "side settlements" ***did exist*** in those early year
games. That is, there is no evidence (and therefore no good reasons)
in the claim's favour at this time. That's all you can say, because
(as I said in another post) of the nature of the documentation for
example, the evidence of their existence may have been left out. But
is this good enough reason for thinking "side settlements" did exist?
Not for me. This reason only makes the proposition, that side
settlements did exist, only somewhat more *likely*. Probability is not
actuality.

But, if more Late Qing data of a more comprehensive kind keeps on
coming to light, and there is still no mention of "side settlements",
then Alan's reason would become increasingly less likely. However,
Alan's other arguments for the "side settlements" existence would also
have to be addressed as well.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hello Cofa.

Hi Michael, I've learned a lot from you but looks like I am still not good
enough!

The following quotes are from different paragraphs...

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels* (novels
that came to our knowledge so far)!

I believe this first quote should be considered correct as it deals with
those novels "that came to our knowledge so far" only.

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Evidences from those Late Qing novels clearly indicate that "side
settlements" did not exist in those early year games. [snip]

The second quote might need some adjustment as it deals with "those early
year games" that cannot be covered entirely just by those novels that came
to our knowledge so far.

[...]

Post by m***@aol.com
But, if more Late Qing data of a more comprehensive kind keeps on
coming to light, and there is still no mention of "side settlements",
then Alan's reason would become increasingly less likely. However,
Alan's other arguments for the "side settlements" existence would also
have to be addressed as well.

I agree. Thanks!

[m***@aol.com]

On Mar 21, 7:01?am, "Cofa Tsui" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello Cofa. Thanks for your reply. Your discussions are most
interesting and thoughtful. (Please excuse any errors, I have a
stomach bug at the moment).

Post by Cofa Tsui
The following quotes are from different paragraphs...

Ok.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels*
(novels that came to our knowledge so far)!

I believe this first quote should be considered correct as it deals with
those novels "that came to our knowledge so far" only.

Well, it depends what you are using this statement for. I understand
that you have a particular point of view(s) about the developement of
maque/MJ - which is ok, because you don't mind discussing it etc. So,
because of your views on the games development, I think your statement
about the content of the Late Qing novels should be more explicit,
because the content could be misinterpreted to imply more than it
should, in the context of your views.

Therefore, I think your statement should say "No, ***descriptions***
of side settlements * did not appear in any of the Late Qing
novels*...". What this does is separate the question of the existence
of side settlements from the lack of description of them in particular
novels. The reason for this separation is because of your views on the
game's developement and because of Alan's reasons why they might not
have been described. Alan's reasons, in my view, provide reasonable
doubt for why we can justifiably say that the existence or not of side
settlements can be supported by these novels.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Evidences from those Late Qing novels clearly indicate that "side
settlements" did not exist in those early year games. [snip]

The second quote might need some adjustment as it deals with "those early
year games" that cannot be covered entirely just by those novels that came
to our knowledge so far.

Sure. But as you can see, your first statement is linked to the
question of **the existence** of side settlements through phrases like
"evidences from" and "did not exist", in your second statement.

I think what period of games you are referring to is really not the
issue. When you said "those early year games" I understood that you
were referring to only those games in "those Late Qing novels", since
both phrases appear in the same sentence. I would leave it at that.

Cheers!
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Not convincing if you use the standards of the "1920s CC-like" or the "CC"
after Millington's book. If maque pai (name used in the late Qing novels) is
relatively in the early years of its formation/development (so far we don't
have evidences of any earlier, close to completion, form of mahjong game),
it could be as simple as the "Big 2" experience (see next), IMO.

That's the understatement of the century. Big 2 merely counts the number
of cards left unplayed in one's hand. Are there any evidence, trace or
suggestion that a "simple" mahjong scoring system existed anywhere before the
20's? Anything I've seen, including Haibara's and even Wilkinson's,
was 100 times more complex than Big 2.

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels* (novels
that came to our knowledge so far)!
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

Every evidence we have points to the scene that, side settlements (regardless of
when it came about) was associated with and applied to the 'Classical' game
(here I mean including "Late Qing", Haibara, 20's and whatsoever), and
propagated as such. Nothing suggested that they were developed with or for
some simpler scoring system, and nothing suggested that such simpler system
existed or was propagated or carried "side settlements" along in its propagation.

While /I/ am pointing to the resultant propagation of side settlements to doubt
its origin, pointing to the same to conjure up a simpler scoring system in thin
air is entirely another level of argument.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Perhaps when Late Qing games evolved into the 1920s

Namely, inflation (adding more patterns, and raising the values of existing
patterns).

Post by Cofa Tsui
the new feature of "side settlements" met the need of most
players in various locations throughout China, for the reasons outlined in
my previous post

which I challenge, on grounds of being practically unlikely (#3 below), and the
only answer you've given is totally ungrounded and not quite plausible.

Side settlements pre-20's was in doubt because:

1. AGAINST : (most of) the novels didn't mention it
2. FOR : it got widely propagated and documented during and after the 20's.
3. FOR : if it was a new introduction around the 20's, its shortcomings
would undermine its birth and propagation

In contrast, there are no grounds for the existence of a "simpler" scoring
system at all.

BTW, an interesting comparison with the conjecture "early existence of HKOS":

1. AGAINST : all early mahjong documents didn't mention it
2. FOR : it got widely propagated later
3. AGAINST : the development process from (what I call) 'Classical' to HKOS has
been well-justified

So IMO, in order to justify the claim that side settlements really did not exist
before the 20's, a convincing argument has to be found for #3 to turn it from
the FOR into an AGAINST.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Evidences from those Late Qing novels clearly indicate that "side
settlements" did not exist in those early year games.

*seem to* suggest. Not "clearly".

Post by Cofa Tsui
I assume the new feature "side settlements" could have been a hot feature
dominating most game-play in the 1920s, thus being captured in the writing
of most foreigners in that period. On the other hand, "side settlements,"
although evolved into the "1920s CC-like" branch, didn't seem to have lived
long in China. - See chart at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html.

It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about the time
period /before/ the 20's (did side settlements exist?) and /during/
(if it came about then, how could it propagate?). /After/ is irrelevant,
and its elimination was a matter of course, since triplet-point counting
was eliminated altogether.

My question is still unanswered: if side settlements was a "new" feature
which appeared in the 20's, how could such a complicated and cumbersome
rule propagate (and become "hot")?

Post by Cofa Tsui
It is my opinion the "1920s CC-like" form had a relatively short lifespan in
local China, where games were propagated mostly by mouth and practice. As a
result of this form of propagation, the Late Qing games continued to evolve
at all times in an uncontrolled manner (i.e., without any written books to
guide its propagation) and into various forms; and the changes were rarely
recorded. This is perhaps why features of the CC games have been so well
preserved in foreign countries while vast changes are seen throughout
China - See the "HKOS" block on right in the chart at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html.

Late Qing (Haibara) evolved from 1890's by inflation until the 20's. The
decline of this group (in China) was IMO primarily due to the birth of HKOS,
which propagated much better for the sake of its simplicity. HKOS was the
direct descendent of Classical (with or without side settlements we don't know,
and this point is IMO not really important) while many (if not most) other
modern Chinese variants were descended from HKOS.

It is correct that CC was preserved in foreign countries by the books.
The Chinese didn't write many mahjong books, and the mouth-and-practice
propagation of HKOS didn't reach overseas until quite recently.

[Tom Sloper]

Post by Alan Kwan
My question is still unanswered: if side settlements was a "new" feature
which appeared in the 20's, how could such a complicated and cumbersome
rule propagate (and become "hot")?

As much as I dislike venturing off into conjecture, the thought that the
complication of side settlements was a side development is worth the
exploration, even if conjectural.
It's quite possible that the foreign community in Shanghai could have
introduced this feature to suit themselves.

"By Jove, chaps, wouldn't it be peachy keen if not only the winner, but
other players as well, could score their hands?" "Jolly good idea, Mister
White." "Why thank you, Mister White."

Consider: with this rule, all the hard work you'd put into collecting
valuable triplets would now not be for naught - although you hadn't won the
hand, you still earned quite a number of chips (and I don't mean French
Fries) from the others at the table.

It's possible that this feature could have increased the popularity of the
game among the foreigners in Shanghai, and spread back out among the
indigenous population from there.

It's not only possible but even feasible.

Post by Alan Kwan
It is correct that CC was preserved in foreign countries by the books.

Writing down the rules not only preserves them, but solidifies and clarifies
them, and makes them easier to propagate. It's a much better and more
reliable propagation tool than word of mouth.

Post by Alan Kwan
Late Qing (Haibara) evolved from 1890's by inflation until the 20's.

I confess that I've fallen behind in my reading of the discussion here. I
kept on top of it for a while, but I missed the first mention of Haibara.
Would someone be so kind as to re-state the citation? Who was Haibara, and
what did he write, and when? Is that a Japanese name? Sorry to ask for a
repeat of the information.

Best regards,
Tom

[Tom Sloper]

Post by Tom Sloper
I confess that I've fallen behind in my reading of the discussion here. I
kept on top of it for a while, but I missed the first mention of Haibara.
Would someone be so kind as to re-state the citation? Who was Haibara, and
what did he write, and when? Is that a Japanese name? Sorry to ask for a
repeat of the information.

Never mind, I found it - it was in my stack of posts to read.
Tom

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Not convincing if you use the standards of the "1920s CC-like" or the
"CC" after Millington's book. If maque pai (name used in the late Qing
novels) is relatively in the early years of its formation/development (so
far we don't have evidences of any earlier, close to completion, form of
mahjong game), it could be as simple as the "Big 2" experience (see
next), IMO.

That's the understatement of the century. Big 2 merely counts the number
of cards left unplayed in one's hand. Are there any evidence, trace or
suggestion that a "simple" mahjong scoring system existed anywhere before the
20's? Anything I've seen, including Haibara's and even Wilkinson's,
was 100 times more complex than Big 2.

I don't believe that the Late Qing games during its transition into the
1920s had as many score elements (scoring patterns) as games in the 1920s,
and that the complicated rules of Babcock etc existed in that period (circa
1910~1920). When a hand is won, all the players have is the score (e.g.,
numbers); so comparing among players is as simple as comparing the numbers
they have.

Post by Alan Kwan
As much as I dislike venturing off into conjecture, the thought that the
complication of side settlements was a side development is worth the
exploration, even if conjectural.
It's quite possible that the foreign community in Shanghai could have
introduced this feature to suit themselves.
"By Jove, chaps, wouldn't it be peachy keen if not only the winner, but
other players as well, could score their hands?" "Jolly good idea, Mister
White." "Why thank you, Mister White."
Consider: with this rule, all the hard work you'd put into collecting
valuable triplets would now not be for naught - although you hadn't won
the hand, you still earned quite a number of chips (and I don't mean
French Fries) from the others at the table.

This was the exact reasoning of the group in my "Big 2 experience" to
explain why "side settlement" could have been introduced in (or into) the
1920s. However, this new feature didn't last for lone (see also bottom)...

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels*
(novels that came to our knowledge so far)!
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007]. In
the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in this
scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

Post by Alan Kwan
Every evidence we have points to the scene that, side settlements (regardless of
when it came about) was associated with and applied to the 'Classical' game
(here I mean including "Late Qing", Haibara, 20's and whatsoever), and
propagated as such.

The Late Qing games (were named "ma que pai") are classical, but not that
"Classical" that it can be linked to the much later terms of "1920s CC-like"
or "CC" - The latter have no reason to claim the merit of the much older
form. As to Haibara's, I doubt that it is merely a mix of elements found in
books of the 1920s but labeled as 1850 Ningbo rules, and published only in
1952 (Showa 27) - A famous technique of duplication of resources of others -
Proof of its origin that can be dated back to 1850 does not exist (or yet to
be found). And I believe the "side settlement" in Haibara's rules is a
result, but an unintended error, of this duplication technique.

Nothing suggested that they were developed with or for

Post by Alan Kwan
some simpler scoring system, and nothing suggested that such simpler system
existed or was propagated or carried "side settlements" along in its propagation.
While /I/ am pointing to the resultant propagation of side settlements to doubt
its origin, pointing to the same to conjure up a simpler scoring system in thin
air is entirely another level of argument.

"No settlement among non-winning players" is evidenced in all the late Qing
novels found so far that described mahjong games in the period 1892 through
1911. "Side settlements" was not recorded until in books of the 1920s.

Nothing was *in record* that side settlement was developed from any older
form; but records we have so far did confirm that an older form having no
side settlement did exist. And I have provided reasonable possibilily how
side settlement had been evolved from an earlier feature.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Perhaps when Late Qing games evolved into the 1920s

Namely, inflation (adding more patterns, and raising the values of existing
patterns).

Inflation is natural in the game's developments in the *uncontrolled
manner*.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
the new feature of "side settlements" met the need of most players in
various locations throughout China, for the reasons outlined in my
previous post

which I challenge, on grounds of being practically unlikely (#3 below),
and the only answer you've given is totally ungrounded and not quite
plausible.
1. AGAINST : (most of) the novels didn't mention it
2. FOR : it got widely propagated and documented during and after the 20's.
3. FOR : if it was a new introduction around the 20's, its shortcomings
would undermine its birth and propagation

Numbers 2 and 3 have just been explained.

Post by Alan Kwan
In contrast, there are no grounds for the existence of a "simpler" scoring
system at all.

If your "simpler scoring system" means "no settlement among non-winning
players" - This is EVIDENCE with those late Qing novels discovered recently.
There is no need to argue about its existence.

Post by Alan Kwan
1. AGAINST : all early mahjong documents didn't mention it
2. FOR : it got widely propagated later
3. AGAINST : the development process from (what I call) 'Classical' to
HKOS has been well-justified
So IMO, in order to justify the claim that side settlements really did not
exist before the 20's, a convincing argument has to be found for #3 to
turn it from the FOR into an AGAINST.

By the way, who has suggested "early existence of HKOS"? (^_^)

Whether side settlement existed before the 1920s has nothing to do with the
early existence of HKOS.

I have pointed out that, the existence of features like "Set payoff
structure before game starts" and "NO settlement between non-winning
players" that are seen in HKOS only but not in CC, in the older games
described in the late Qing novels would suggest that these older games could
be the direct source of the developments/evolutions of HKOS.

[...]

Post by Alan Kwan
My question is still unanswered: if side settlements was a "new" feature
which appeared in the 20's, how could such a complicated and cumbersome
rule propagate (and become "hot")?

But in fact, it (the complicated and cumbersome rule of "side settlement")
was just a heat and did not last long. It was however preserved by books
when the game happened to become a heat in a short era (1920s).

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
It is my opinion the "1920s CC-like" form had a relatively short lifespan
in local China, where games were propagated mostly by mouth and practice.
As a result of this form of propagation, the Late Qing games continued to
evolve at all times in an uncontrolled manner (i.e., without any written
books to guide its propagation) and into various forms; and the changes
were rarely recorded. This is perhaps why features of the CC games have
been so well
preserved in foreign countries while vast changes are seen throughout
China - See the "HKOS" block on right in the chart at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html.

Late Qing (Haibara) evolved from 1890's by inflation until the 20's. The
decline of this group (in China) was IMO primarily due to the birth of
HKOS, which propagated much better for the sake of its simplicity. HKOS
was the direct descendent of Classical (with or without side settlements
we don't know,
and this point is IMO not really important) while many (if not most) other
modern Chinese variants were descended from HKOS.

Haibara has no merit of the Late Qing games. Let's concentrate with the late
Qing novels only.

My suggestion is that Late Qing games evolved from 1890s by inflation until
the 1950/60s when written books about the games in China became readily
available. No doubt HKOS was termed in the 1970s, however, it is important
to recognize that some of its features were carried over from the Late Qing
games during its ever evolving journey from the 1890s.

It is also no doubt the new "side settlement" feature was killed by the ever
evolving "inflation" desires of players.

Post by Alan Kwan
It is correct that CC was preserved in foreign countries by the books.
The Chinese didn't write many mahjong books, and the mouth-and-practice
propagation of HKOS didn't reach overseas until quite recently.

I guess the propagation of HKOS overseas is also a result of more and more
books becoming available since 1960s.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
I don't believe that the Late Qing games during its transition into the
1920s had as many score elements (scoring patterns) as games in the 1920s,
and that the complicated rules of Babcock etc existed in that period (circa
1910~1920). When a hand is won, all the players have is the score (e.g.,
numbers); so comparing among players is as simple as comparing the numbers
they have.

That number is a lot more difficult to compute than merely a card count.
You count 9 kinds of sets with 5 different values. And then it's sometimes
doubled once or twice. And then there's East doubling.

With Big 2 everyone's "score" is usually a single-digit number, occasionally 10
to 13. With mahjong 2-digit scores are common.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels*
(novels that came to our knowledge so far)!
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007]. In
the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in this
scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

I object. Your argument was biased and unsound. It was quite clear in the
passage that they were computing side settlements.

说得一座大噱。老四对璧如白了一眼，怂恿空冀道："他在说你马不马。"璧如道："空
冀，你大概给他骑过，常常跑马射箭的。"空冀道："老哥嘴停停罢，牌莫打差。­"璧如方始
住口。一回子璧如、复生各和两副大牌，老四大输，仍让空冀叉。空冀输得发急起来，有一
副牌起手一克中风一张白皮，好容易摸进白皮对，中风开杠，碰九同­吃四同，等白皮一同
双碰到三番，停回下家打一张一同，给对家亚白摊牌拦和，又是一副大双番。空冀气得跳
脚，把自己四张牌对牌堆里一掼。须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出，又多寻了一张，一起
三张叠在门前，等和家算帐算开，空冀算算道："十六加八念四，念四加四念八，念八一番
五十六，两番一百十二，心想收诸桑榆，不无小补。­"这时璧如道："两和两和。"瞧瞧自己
门前两张白皮，只剩一张，一望叠在空冀门前，当把剩下一张白皮，送到空冀手里道："一
起给你凑凑数罢。剩下一张不尴不尬，­零零碎碎，要他作甚。"空冀面上一红，亏他转篷得
快，笑着道："我试试你呢，你一张嘴胡说乱道，神志倒还清楚。"璧如道："我不比你迷眼
飞来，牌会打差。"

亚白、复生，各对空冀噗哧一笑。空冀觉得这一笑，比一副三番给人拦和，还难过十倍。

Post by Cofa Tsui
And from the way the writer used it, i.e., quoting
only the second half of the idiom, the portion (first part of the
idiom) about "losing something" is ingored. I guess that's because the
writer recognized that Kongji had in fact lost nothing, because he
didn't own it (the intercepted win) in the first place.

It's a biased argument. Quoting only part of an idiom, but meaning the whole
thing, is very common in Chinese literature. Very often, for an idiom of more
than 4 words, we mean it by saying only 4 words. Even I myself do it often.

The most natural explanation here is that, although the player's win was
intercepted (the loss), he could still recover something in side settlements.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Kongji whose win was intercepted by the opposite
seat, was trying to reform his hand to see how much the scores would
be *should he have to win* - And other players are participating (see
later)!

It was clearly loser's scoring that's being computed. Winner's scoring
would have added 10 basic points, plus one more faan for Mixed One-Suit.

And Biru's claim for 2 points was for his White pair - also loser's scoring.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Kongji couldn't be scoring his hand for real. Firstly, he threw his
pais to the floor after his win was intercepted.

The text clearly explained why:

空冀气得跳脚，把自己四张牌对牌堆里一掼。

And that is my suggestion for why the other novels didn't mention side
settlements too. Note that these novels kept talking about big hands, which is
quite atypical for a typical session using those rules. In other words, it was
'literary expression'. These were not textbooks on mahjong-playing procedure.

须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出

When counting side settlements, you can throw away non-scoring parts of your
hand. But Konji realized that the White pair was worth points, so he got them
back (and snatched a third one in the confusion).

If following your argument that Konji was trying to demonstrate winner's
scoring, he should have grabbed (at least one tile from) his other pair (1 of
Dots) too. It's because Konji had tossed his 1D pair into the river, that he
could try to get away with an extra White, without being seen as having a "long
hand".

Post by Cofa Tsui
Secondly, he got the
3rd Baipi ("White Board") from within other player's (i.e., Biru's)
hand to redo his hand. Why these would happen if settlement between
non-winning players is to follow?

The text suggested that Konji grabbed it when Biru wasn't paying attention.
Perhaps when everybody was looking at the winning hand.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Finally, if you read the rest of the script, you'll see Kongji was
doing that for teasing, rather than for real - In effect, other
players were laughing at him!

空冀面上一红，亏他转篷得快，笑着道："我试试你呢，你一张嘴胡说乱道，神志倒还清楚。

Konji was caught cheating, and he admitted that he "did something", but
he tried to deny that he was intentionally cheating (to cheat the others of
their money), but rather was just "testing" Biru.

亚白、复生，各对空冀噗哧一笑。空冀觉得这一笑，比一副三番给人拦和，还难过十倍。

It was not "laughing", it was sneering, and Konji felt ashamed.
The others didn't buy Konji's excuse, but they chose to just laugh it off
rather than taking action (beating Konji up or such), since it's a 'friendly'
game. Konji knew that his excuse didn't really convince, so he felt ashamed.
If he was merely demonstrating winner's scoring (even falsely), he need not feel
ashamed. In fact, since he had a 2-pair wait of 1D and White, it would be
rightful for him to borrow Biru's White to demonstrate how much his hand would
worth had he won on a White.

Biru was really elegant in handling Konji's cheating. Instead of grabbing the
White and claiming that "it's mine", he turned the other cheek and offered his
remaining White to Konji. If he had grabbed the White, Konji would probably
have outright denied; but his elegance overwhelmed Konji, so he had to admit
that the White wasn't his.

Interpretating this passage is analogus to understanding the development from
Classical to HKOS: we can see a clear, natural explanation, why insisting on
twisting it to mean what one wants?

Post by Cofa Tsui
"No settlement among non-winning players" is evidenced in all the late Qing
novels found so far that described mahjong games in the period 1892 through
1911. "Side settlements" was not recorded until in books of the 1920s.

Which of the novels mentioned that the tiles were shuffled, the walls were
built, and the dice cast and the wall broken? Which of the novels explained the
rule that you can chi only from your upper seat?

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
I don't believe that the Late Qing games during its transition into the
1920s had as many score elements (scoring patterns) as games in the
1920s, and that the complicated rules of Babcock etc existed in that
period (circa 1910~1920). When a hand is won, all the players have is the
score (e.g., numbers); so comparing among players is as simple as
comparing the numbers they have.

That number is a lot more difficult to compute than merely a card count.
You count 9 kinds of sets with 5 different values. And then it's sometimes
doubled once or twice. And then there's East doubling.

However difficult you still need to learn and know it well in order to play
the game, right? However difficult you still need to count to come out with
a total score if you win a hand, right? All these should be easy to a player
whether there is side settlement or not, right? When the total score is
reached, it's just a number that is needed to compare among players if the
"side settlement" is a function of the game. The process of comparing (side
settlement) is as simple as in Big 2.

Post by Alan Kwan
With Big 2 everyone's "score" is usually a single-digit number,
occasionally 10 to 13. With mahjong 2-digit scores are common.

We even see 3 and 4-digit scores in the novels - but they are all just a
number. What I meant is that in those Late Qing games, the scoring should be
fairly easy, such that adding the side settlement feature is also easy and
feasible.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Cofa Tsui
No, side settlements *did not appear in any of the Late Qing novels*
(novels that came to our knowledge so far)!
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007].
In the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in
this scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

I object. Your argument was biased and unsound. It was quite clear in
the passage that they were computing side settlements.

[...]

If they were computing side settlements, how would you explain:

- Kongji would have messed up his pais to the centre;

- Kongji would have grabbed pais from other's hand;

- Kongji would have cheated on others (this is suggested by you only);

- Biru would have given up his own Baipi ("White Board"); and

- Kongji was the only one to score his hand, while others (non-winning
players) were only watching (without also scoring their hands).

Alan, I can't bias an argument by providing a wrong interpretation of the
original text, when the original text is readily available for scrutiny by
others. And for this same reason, I believe I do not need to comment on your
interpretation of the original content.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
"No settlement among non-winning players" is evidenced in all the late
Qing novels found so far that described mahjong games in the period 1892
through 1911. "Side settlements" was not recorded until in books of the
1920s.

Which of the novels mentioned that the tiles were shuffled, the walls were
built, and the dice cast and the wall broken? Which of the novels
explained the rule that you can chi only from your upper seat?

Perhaps these all did NOT exist. The players simply pushed a button and
their hands of pais were ready for scoring - And please don't ask if any of
the novels has mentioned any button in the play.

[m***@aol.com]

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Cofa Tsui
I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007].
In the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in
this scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

I object. �Your argument was biased and unsound. �It was quite clear in
the passage that they were computing side settlements.

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Alan, I can't bias an argument by providing a wrong interpretation of the
original text, when the original text is readily available for scrutiny by
others.

Hello Cofa,

I think the word 'bias' is not helpful here. To me it suggests wilfull
distortion.

It seems to me that this is an issue of the reasons about why you
interpret particular texts in a particular way. I have struck this
many times with English texts. I was once debating with a person about
the interpretation of a letter written by Galileo during his
inquisition. The disagreement occured over the reference meaning of
one particular word. The important point was that a word on its own
has no meaning. It only has meaning when used in a sentence, which is
the context of the word. The meaning of the word in the Galileo letter
became clear when the sentences in which it appeared were examined.

Post by Cofa Tsui
And for this same reason, I believe I do not need to comment on your
interpretation of the original content.

But I think you do Cofa. After all, this is a public forum for
exchange of ideas. We need to see whether your objections to Alan's
analysis stand up. It may be that they do or it may be that they
don't. But we need to understand that nature of your objections, and
these lie primarily in your interpretations of key texts.

But if you don't want to, then that is fine, and the debate reaches an
impasse.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Cofa Tsui
I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007].
In the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in
this scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

I object. ?Your argument was biased and unsound. ?It was quite clear in
the passage that they were computing side settlements.

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Alan, I can't bias an argument by providing a wrong interpretation of the
original text, when the original text is readily available for scrutiny by
others.

Hello Cofa,
I think the word 'bias' is not helpful here. To me it suggests wilfull
distortion.

Now that's very serious, Michael (^_^) Whichever way you see or feel,
I certainly had no such intention that you suggest...

Post by m***@aol.com
It seems to me that this is an issue of the reasons about why you
interpret particular texts in a particular way. I have struck this
many times with English texts. I was once debating with a person about
the interpretation of a letter written by Galileo during his
inquisition. The disagreement occured over the reference meaning of
one particular word. The important point was that a word on its own
has no meaning. It only has meaning when used in a sentence, which is
the context of the word. The meaning of the word in the Galileo letter
became clear when the sentences in which it appeared were examined.

I agree with you. In the past and as always, whenever providing
meaning of Chinese text to this newsgroup, I used to try to provide
*direct translation* rather than *interpretation* to try to preserve
the closest meaning possible of the original text. My discussion with
Ithinc was no exception...

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
And for this same reason, I believe I do not need to comment on your
interpretation of the original content.

But I think you do Cofa. After all, this is a public forum for
exchange of ideas. We need to see whether your objections to Alan's
analysis stand up. It may be that they do or it may be that they
don't. But we need to understand that nature of your objections, and
these lie primarily in your interpretations of key texts.

But with this one, I was just frustrated to see a distorted version -
Full of interpretation rather than straight translation of the
original text. You are right, this is a public forum and that's why I
emphasized "scrutiny by others" - Hoping that those who are familiar
with Chinese could also express some view...

Post by m***@aol.com
But if you don't want to, then that is fine, and the debate reaches an
impasse.

Of course I would always love to see an end or conclusion of a debate.
Despite the above, I would take time to reply to Alan's post. Stay
tuned.

By the way, I just noticed that year 1927 is associated with the
article - was "Ren Hai Chao" written or published in 1927? Anyone
please?

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Cofa Tsui
I have had full discussion with Ithinc about this scene [look for subject
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927' and around Jan 22, 2007].
In the discussion I have concluded that side settlement did not exist in
this scene. (Ithinc did not follow up with any objection.)

I object. ?Your argument was biased and unsound. ?It was quite clear in
the passage that they were computing side settlements.

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Alan, I can't bias an argument by providing a wrong interpretation of the
original text, when the original text is readily available for scrutiny by
others.

Hello Cofa,
I think the word 'bias' is not helpful here. To me it suggests wilfull
distortion.

Now that's very serious, Michael (^_^) Whichever way you see or feel,
I certainly had no such intention that you suggest...

Hello Cofa.

Sorry. You misunderstood what I wrote. Probably due to my hurried
reply. I was not talking about you. I was commenting on the use of the
word 'bias' **as introduced by Alan**, not you. I am saying that
Alan's use of the word 'bias' is unhelpful here, as it **may suggest**
that you are using wilful distortion, and I don't think anybody is
suggesting that or proven that.

So please accept my apology for my bad wording.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
And for this same reason, I believe I do not need to comment on your
interpretation of the original content.

But I think you do Cofa. After all, this is a public forum for
exchange of ideas. We need to see whether your objections to Alan's
analysis stand up. It may be that they do or it may be that they
don't. But we need to understand that nature of your objections, and
these lie primarily in your interpretations of key texts.

But with this one, I was just frustrated to see a distorted version -
Full of interpretation rather than straight translation of the
original text. You are right, this is a public forum and that's why I
emphasized "scrutiny by others" - Hoping that those who are familiar
with Chinese could also express some view...

Now this is where I might become unstuck. Is it not the case that even
when using Chinese text it is not a matter of just straight
translation? Translation involves interpretation which in turn
involves taking into account the context in which the words appear?

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hello Cofa.
Sorry. You misunderstood what I wrote. Probably due to my hurried
reply. I was not talking about you. I was commenting on the use of the
word 'bias' **as introduced by Alan**, not you. I am saying that
Alan's use of the word 'bias' is unhelpful here, as it **may suggest**
that you are using wilful distortion, and I don't think anybody is
suggesting that or proven that.

Thanks Michael, for writing, and for the clarifications. I understand you so
please don't worry about it any more.

I'll take time to reply to Alan's post but it might not be now though.

Post by m***@aol.com
Now this is where I might become unstuck. Is it not the case that even
when using Chinese text it is not a matter of just straight
translation? Translation involves interpretation which in turn
involves taking into account the context in which the words appear?

My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, even
the resulting work appears to be incorrect or incomplete (due to how the
origin is); while interpretation could be a mix of original meaning and
personal contents (opinion, knowledge, etc).

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Cofa Tsui
My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, even
the resulting work appears to be incorrect or incomplete (due to how the
origin is); while interpretation could be a mix of original meaning and
personal contents (opinion, knowledge, etc).

With the possible exception of single words on traffic signs, when is
there ever a straight transform of meaning? Often people can't even
agree on the meaning of texts in one language, never mind translating
them to another.

[Tom Sloper]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Cofa Tsui
My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, even
the resulting work appears to be incorrect or incomplete (due to how the
origin is); while interpretation could be a mix of original meaning and
personal contents (opinion, knowledge, etc).

With the possible exception of single words on traffic signs, when is
there ever a straight transform of meaning? Often people can't even
agree on the meaning of texts in one language, never mind translating
them to another.

The discussions in this newsgroup being a perfect example.

[m***@aol.com]

[snip]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
Now this is where I might become unstuck. Is it not the case that even
when using Chinese text it is not a matter of just straight
translation? Translation involves interpretation which in turn
involves taking into account the context in which the words appear?

My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, even
the resulting work appears to be incorrect or incomplete (due to how the
origin is); while interpretation could be a mix of original meaning and
personal contents (opinion, knowledge, etc).

Hello Cofa. But you have just restated my last sentence. You have
introduced into your 1st sentence the word "meaning". But how do you
get the meaning of the word? The meaning of a word is obtained by
finding out the meanings of the sentences in which the word is
*typically used*. This is the context of the word, as I mentioned
above. This act of obtaining the meaning of a word is called
interpretation.

But there are reasons for why a particular word, and hence text, is
interpreted a certain way. So putting your reasons up for us to see,
allows us to evaluate them in relation to your claims about those
maque games in the late Qing novels.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, even
the resulting work appears to be incorrect or incomplete (due to how the
origin is); while interpretation could be a mix of original meaning and
personal contents (opinion, knowledge, etc).

Hello Cofa. But you have just restated my last sentence. You have
introduced into your 1st sentence the word "meaning". But how do you
get the meaning of the word? The meaning of a word is obtained by
finding out the meanings of the sentences in which the word is
*typically used*. This is the context of the word, as I mentioned
above. This act of obtaining the meaning of a word is called
interpretation.

As it is almost 100% true that a single word would have more than one
meanings, one would have to consider the whole sentence to pick the
(most) correct meaning of a particular word to transform the (most)
correct meaning of the sentence. Due to the relationship of individual
words in a sentence and the sentence as a whole, the results of
translation of a piece of text if by different people would be more or
less the same; while the results of interpretation could be quite
different.

Post by m***@aol.com
But there are reasons for why a particular word, and hence text, is
interpreted a certain way. So putting your reasons up for us to see,
allows us to evaluate them in relation to your claims about those
maque games in the late Qing novels.

I agree, and that's why I agreed to reply to Alan's post. As a matter
of fact, I did over two hours ago - But it didn't seem to show up...

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Cofa Tsui
As it is almost 100% true that a single word would have more than one
meanings, one would have to consider the whole sentence to pick the
(most) correct meaning of a particular word to transform the (most)
correct meaning of the sentence.

Yes. But by 'transform' (which I have never come across used this way)
it seems you mean 'interpret'? If so, this would be correct.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Due to the relationship of individual
words in a sentence and the sentence as a whole, the results of
translation of a piece of text if by different people would be more or
less the same; while the results of interpretation could be quite
different.

Huh!? This seems confused to me, when it should be pretty
straightforward. We get what we consider the correct meaning - we
interpret (your 'transform') - of a word and hence a piece of text,
or an entire text for that matter. We then translate this meaning of a
word or piece of text or an entire text into another language by
selecting what we consider the most appropriate words or symbols etc.
That again involves an act of judgement.

But this is becoming a sterile exchange as enogh has been said I
think. ^_^

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
But there are reasons for why a particular word, and hence text, is
interpreted a certain way. So putting your reasons up for us to see,
allows us to evaluate them in relation to your claims about those
maque games in the late Qing novels.

I agree, and that's why I agreed to reply to Alan's post. As a matter
of fact, I did over two hours ago - But it didn't seem to show up...

You too? I have had the same problem on and off for about a week now.
And always I was told my post had been successful. I have now taken
the precaution of saving what I have written so I can repost it if the
need arise.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
As it is almost 100% true that a single word would have more than one
meanings, one would have to consider the whole sentence to pick the
(most) correct meaning of a particular word to transform the (most)
correct meaning of the sentence.

Yes. But by 'transform' (which I have never come across used this way)
it seems you mean 'interpret'? If so, this would be correct.

Hi Michael, by "transform" I mean to include both "translate" and
"interprete," and my understanding is that there is slight difference
between "translate" (straight forward) and "interprete" (with mix of
translator's opinions and knowledge, etc).

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
Due to the relationship of individual
words in a sentence and the sentence as a whole, the results of
translation of a piece of text if by different people would be more or
less the same; while the results of interpretation could be quite
different.

Huh!? This seems confused to me, when it should be pretty
straightforward. We get what we consider the correct meaning - we
interpret (your 'transform') - of a word and hence a piece of text,
or an entire text for that matter. We then translate this meaning of a
word or piece of text or an entire text into another language by
selecting what we consider the most appropriate words or symbols etc.
That again involves an act of judgement.
But this is becoming a sterile exchange as enogh has been said I
think. ^_^

A simple example (perhaps not a perfect one) to explain the difference is as
follows:

When we transform older Chinese literature, for the term "??" as we see
often in those late Qing novels:
- A direct translation would be: Centre Wind. (If it is direct translation,
I believe everyone's work could be the same.)
- An interpretation by a person experienced in mahjong, or by person
presenting the transformed work to people experienced in mahjong, the work
could be rendered (transfermed) as: Red Centre, Red Wind, or Red Dragon.

A more complicated example can be seen with the transformed work out of the
scene involving Kongji and Biru ['"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in
1927' dated 1/22/2007 in the mahjong newsgroup].

Direct translation (simplified):
Kongji tossed her pais to the centre, then picked the pair of White back and
found another White, and formed a hand in front and scored it...

With interpretation, I wrote (simplified):
Kongji was reforming her hand to get some comfort for herself... ("for her
own comfort" or "teasing" was mixed with my opinion, knowledge and
experience, etc. about the game)

With interpretation, Alan wrote (simplified):
Kongji was cheating and got caught... ("cheating" was mixed with Alan's
opinion, knowledge and experience, etc. about the game)

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by m***@aol.com
But there are reasons for why a particular word, and hence text, is
interpreted a certain way. So putting your reasons up for us to see,
allows us to evaluate them in relation to your claims about those
maque games in the late Qing novels.

I agree, and that's why I agreed to reply to Alan's post. As a matter
of fact, I did over two hours ago - But it didn't seem to show up...

You too? I have had the same problem on and off for about a week now.
And always I was told my post had been successful. I have now taken
the precaution of saving what I have written so I can repost it if the
need arise.

I guess I know why now. I actually posted my message three times! The first
one, I composed the message right on the Google site (I thought this way the
Chinese fonts would be able to show up). It took a prolonged time to finish
the work (over an hour I believe). I hit "SEND" and the site said my "send"
was successful. Of course that message didn't show up.

My second post was almost the same, except that I've saved the work before
sending - Smart move, eh?! ^_^
Again, it didn't seem to show up.

My third post was sent after 10-15 minutes later. Using cut and paste it was
done in just minutes. It worked!

Cheers!

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Hi Michael, by "transform" I mean to include both "translate" and
"interpret," and my understanding is that there is a slight difference
between "translate" (straight forward) and "interpret" (with a mix of the
translator's opinions and knowledge, etc). [added a couple of words]

Hello Cofa. Well, I thought this exchange was over ^_^. However, I
think this issue is important because I think it goes to the heart of
how you guys deal with the information gleaned from the Late Qing
novels.

I think 'transform' is incorrect *in this context*. You are not
changing the form of representation or expression into something else,
for example, the written word into music. (I suppose we might like to
hear you sing the texts? ^_^ - just joking!)

Post by Cofa Tsui
A simple example (perhaps not a perfect one) to explain the difference is as
When we transform older Chinese literature, for the term "??" as we see
- A direct translation would be: Centre Wind. (If it is direct translation,
I believe everyone's work could be the same.)

It depends on what background MJ knowledge people have. Consider what
you have done. 1st you considered and then obtained the most
appropriate meaning for the word "zhong" - you *interpreted* the most
appropriate meaning of the word and you did this by considering the
context in which it was in. Same for "feng". You then expressed this
meaning or sense of the term "zhong feng" into another language. This
process is translation. But the term 'direct' hides this crucial act
of interpretation as you outline below....

Post by Cofa Tsui
- An interpretation by a person experienced in mahjong, or by person
presenting the transformed work to people experienced in mahjong, the work
could be rendered (transformed) as: Red Centre, Red Wind, or Red Dragon.

..... or 'center direction' or just 'center'. So your 'direct
translation' isn't so 'direct' at all.

Transformed is the wrong or confusing word. What you are doing is
translation, which crucially involves interpretation.

Post by Cofa Tsui
A more complicated example can be seen with the transformed work out of the
scene involving Kongji and Biru ['"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in
1927' dated 1/22/2007 in the mahjong newsgroup].
Kongji tossed her pais to the centre, then picked the pair of White back and
found another White, and formed a hand in front and scored it...

Well, 'direct', to me at least, hides the fact that this sentence is
the result of someones interpretation of the Chinese text.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Kongji was reforming her hand to get some comfort for herself... ("for her
own comfort" or "teasing" was mixed with my opinion, knowledge and
experience, etc. about the game)
Kongji was cheating and got caught... ("cheating" was mixed with Alan's
opinion, knowledge and experience, etc. about the game)

This is correct. These are interpretations of an entire piece of text
after it has been translated. Mind you, you could have translated the
text into your respective interpretations above but that would be
grossly unfair as we would not get to see the raw data, so-to-speak.
(I'm not suggesting anyone has done that though).

Post by Cofa Tsui
I guess I know why now. I actually posted my message three times! The first
one, I composed the message right on the Google site (I thought this way the
Chinese fonts would be able to show up). It took a prolonged time to finish
the work (over an hour I believe). I hit "SEND" and the site said my "send"
was successful. Of course that message didn't show up.
My second post was almost the same, except that I've saved the work before
sending - Smart move, eh?! ^_^
Again, it didn't seem to show up.
My third post was sent after 10-15 minutes later. Using cut and paste it was
done in just minutes. It worked!

Exactly what I did! Took me three times as well.

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
A more complicated example can be seen with the transformed work out of the
scene involving Kongji and Biru ['"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in
1927' dated 1/22/2007 in the mahjong newsgroup].
Kongji tossed her pais to the centre, then picked the pair of White back and
found another White, and formed a hand in front and scored it...

If that's your way of "direct translation", it's already *clearly* biased by
you. Your process of "simplification" is already biased.

空冀气得跳脚，把自己四张牌对牌堆里一掼。须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出，又多寻了
一张，一起三张叠在门前，等和家算帐算开，空冀算算道：

Kongji was so angry that he stamped his foot, and threw his four tiles into the
center. After a moment, he remembered his white pair, and he picked them back,
and found one more, and put the three in front of himself. After the winner
finished scoring, he scored: ...

Compare this with what I posted previously: I marked my own interpretation with
[]; excluding those, we can see that my 'translation' was indeed more faithful
to the original text than yours.

For one, the text literally said that Kongji took the three white and put them
in front of himself. Nothing was mentioned about getting a pair of eyes or
"forming a hand".

Post by Cofa Tsui
Kongji was reforming her hand to get some comfort for herself... ("for her
own comfort" or "teasing" was mixed with my opinion, knowledge and
experience, etc. about the game)

Your interpretation cannot stand without your biased process of removing parts
of the text 'inconvenient for your purpose' in your "simplification" process.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
Due to the relationship of individual
words in a sentence and the sentence as a whole, the results of
translation of a piece of text if by different people would be more or
less the same; while the results of interpretation could be quite
different.

Huh!? This seems confused to me, when it should be pretty
straightforward. We get what we consider the correct meaning - we
interpret (your 'transform') - of a word and hence a piece of text,
or an entire text for that matter. We then translate this meaning of a
word or piece of text or an entire text into another language by
selecting what we consider the most appropriate words or symbols etc.
That again involves an act of judgement.
But this is becoming a sterile exchange as enogh has been said I
think. ^_^

It's just Cofa behaving as a fire-setting officer. He can rightly
(mis-)interpret any text as he sees fit, but anybody else's translation
should be called a biased interpretation - if the translation is inconvenient
for him.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Cofa Tsui
Due to the relationship of individual
words in a sentence and the sentence as a whole, the results of
translation of a piece of text if by different people would be more or
less the same; while the results of interpretation could be quite
different.

Huh!? This seems confused to me, when it should be pretty
straightforward. We get what we consider the correct meaning - we
interpret (your 'transform') - �of a word and hence a piece of text,
or an entire text for that matter. We then translate this meaning of a
word or piece of text or an entire text into another language by
selecting what we consider the most appropriate words or symbols etc.
That again involves an act of judgement.
But this is becoming a sterile exchange as enogh has been said I
think. ^_^

It's just Cofa behaving as a fire-setting officer. �He can rightly
(mis-)interpret any text as he sees fit, but anybody else's translation
should be called a biased interpretation - if the translation is inconvenient
for him.

Well... I take a rather less confrontational approach Alan. My
appraoch is to stick, as conscientiously as I am able, to a charitable
approach - adopting the most charitable interpretation of someones
words (and motives). So I regard Cofa's questions and statements as
well meaning etc.

I don't mind anybody asserting or accusing or laying down a question,
but they sure as hell have to get past our critical faculties before
anything else. The best defence is our reasoning - asking for
clarification or the reasons behind whatever they say. If you don't
agree with them - ask them to justify what they have said. The burden
of proof is on the claimant after all.

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Post by m***@aol.com
Well... I take a rather less confrontational approach Alan.

Well, I tried to be more utility than confrontational at the beginning.
But this 'deer-horse' debate really got tiring.

Post by m***@aol.com
So I regard Cofa's questions and statements as well meaning etc.

But from the day he got the cultural shock (or should I say "historical shock")
when he learned about Classical mahjong, he had been very consistently defending
his delusions by denying reality.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
Well... I take a rather less confrontational approach Alan.

Well, I tried to be more utility than confrontational at the beginning.
But this 'deer-horse' debate really got tiring.

Post by m***@aol.com
So I regard Cofa's questions and statements as well meaning etc.

But from the day he got the cultural shock (or should I say "historical shock")
when he learned about Classical mahjong, he had been very consistently
defending his delusions by denying reality.

Well, sooner or later reality has the habit of sneaking up and kicking
any of us in the butt! ^_^

Look, in any debate/discussion, as you probably know, a defense is
only as good as the opposing offence. That's why I say that no matter
what the argument and no matter who asserts it, provided your critical
reasoning is ok, it is very easy to courteously and coherently
dismember an incorrect position. The problem is that it takes time.

I guess that is a luxury we don't all share.

Perhaps the discussion is now becoming sterile.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
Well... I take a rather less confrontational approach Alan.

Well, I tried to be more utility than confrontational at the beginning.
But this 'deer-horse' debate really got tiring.

Post by m***@aol.com
So I regard Cofa's questions and statements as well meaning etc.

But from the day he got the cultural shock (or should I say "historical shock")
when he learned about Classical mahjong, he had been very consistently
defending his delusions by denying reality.

Well, sooner or later reality has the habit of sneaking up and kicking
any of us in the butt! ^_^
Look, in any debate/discussion, as you probably know, a defense is
only as good as the opposing offence. That's why I say that no matter
what the argument and no matter who asserts it, provided your critical
reasoning is ok, it is very easy to courteously and coherently
dismember an incorrect position. The problem is that it takes time.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
Well... I take a rather less confrontational approach Alan.

Well, I tried to be more utility than confrontational at the beginning.
But this 'deer-horse' debate really got tiring.

Post by m***@aol.com
So I regard Cofa's questions and statements as well meaning etc.

But from the day he got the cultural shock (or should I say "historical shock")
when he learned about Classical mahjong, he had been very consistently
defending his delusions by denying reality.

Well, sooner or later reality has the habit of sneaking up and kicking
any of us in the butt! ^_^
Look, in any debate/discussion, as you probably know, a defense is
only as good as the opposing offence. That's why I say that no matter
what the argument and no matter who asserts it, provided your critical
reasoning is ok, it is very easy to courteously and coherently
dismember an incorrect position. The problem is that it takes time.

I agree no less than anyone (^_^) Confrontational or attacking speech
never will change the reality or fact, nor force others to believe
anything that's in doubt.

= = = = = = =

UPDATES ABOUT THE NOVEL "REN HAI CHAO"

I have found online and downloaded the full version of Ren Hai Chao,
from:
http://www.99inf.net/chapter_id_174203.shtml

I have kept the full version in a Microsoft Word file (all Chinese) -
Anyone who wishes to have a copy of the file (1.5MB in size) please
feel free to email me:
IMJ \at\ COFATSUI \dot\ COM

I have done some "search" and reading, and have come up with the
following information:

Publication date: From the Preface of the book, the author wrote his
portion of the preface on the October 10 festival in the Republic Year
15 (1926) - So it should be safe to say that its publication date was
either 1926 or 1927.

The gender of the *famous* characters in the novel: I must apologize
for the information provided before - From the below you'll see,
Kongji is in fact a guy!

- 璧如 (Biru): A male - A worker in a grocery store on the street.
[Chapter Two]
- 空冀 (Kongji): A male - Was a clark in a school; now an editor with
one Shanghai Global Publishing House. [Chapter Eleven]
- 复生 (Fusheng): A male - The editor of a newspaper, of which Yabai
(see next) is the boss. [Chapter Eleven]
- 亚白 (Yabai): A male - The boss of a newspaper (see also above).
[Chapter Eleven]
- 老四 (Laosi): Laosi is a lady from the escort service house. Laosi is
a nickname meaning Number Four on the name list. [Chapter Eleven]

I have also searched and read parts containing the terms "麻雀(maque)"
throughout the novel. To be honest, I can't find any suggestion on the
context that "side settlement" is involved in any of the mahjong
(maque) scenes. Now that the full version of the 1927 novel is here.
No evidence doesn't automatically mean it did not exist - I'll let
anyone who is interested in the topic to make an informed judgement of
his/her own.

Cheers!

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Cofa Tsui
- 璧如 (Biru): A male - A worker in a grocery store on the street.
[Chapter Two]
- 璧如 (Biru): A male - Son of the owner of a grocery store on the street.
[Chapter Two]

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[ithinc]

Post by Cofa Tsui
I have also searched and read parts containing the terms "麻雀(maque)"
throughout the novel. To be honest, I can't find any suggestion on the
context that "side settlement" is involved in any of the mahjong
(maque) scenes. Now that the full version of the 1927 novel is here.
No evidence doesn't automatically mean it did not exist - I'll let
anyone who is interested in the topic to make an informed judgement of
his/her own.

We have known this is your own opinion for a long time. And the full
"Ren Hai Chao" is always there(I have a text version). I have looked
it through two months before and posted some relevant infomation in
the "Ren Hai Chao" thread. It's obvious for me "side settlement" does
exsit in two scenes in it, which in Chinese had been posted.

ithinc

[ithinc]

Post by ithinc

Post by Cofa Tsui
I have also searched and read parts containing the terms "麻雀(maque)"
throughout the novel. To be honest, I can't find any suggestion on the
context that "side settlement" is involved in any of the mahjong
(maque) scenes. Now that the full version of the 1927 novel is here.
No evidence doesn't automatically mean it did not exist - I'll let
anyone who is interested in the topic to make an informed judgement of
his/her own.

We have known this is your own opinion for a long time. And the full
"Ren Hai Chao" is always there(I have a text version). I have looked
it through two months before and posted some relevant infomation in
the "Ren Hai Chao" thread. It's obvious for me "side settlement" does
exsit in two scenes in it, which in Chinese had been posted.
ithinc

Except what is being discussed, another scene is "吾也有一对在这里，本想碰的，见你三-张比吾
多，只好让你开杠，谁想你运气真好，杠头上又摸到一张，那么连我两和都不能算了。".

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
But with this one, I was just frustrated to see a distorted version -
Full of interpretation rather than straight translation of the
original text. You are right, this is a public forum and that's why I
emphasized "scrutiny by others" - Hoping that those who are familiar
with Chinese could also express some view...

Just from the way the points are counted, your *interpretation* that
Biru was trying to demonstrate winner's scoring is obviously wrong.
It *is* the loser's scoring we are all familiar with.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Kongji would have messed up his pais to the centre;

I explained already, if only you could read. It is habitual for a player to
toss non-scoring parts of his hand into the center.

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Kongji would have grabbed pais from other's hand;

I explained already.

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Kongji would have cheated on others (this is suggested by you only);

How else do you explain that Kongji felt 'very sad' when the others laughed? He
was being sneered at for cheating (and getting caught).

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Biru would have given up his own Baipi ("White Board"); and

I explained already, if only you could read. Or you don't understand what
'turning the other cheek' mean? That's idiom: typically shortened.

这时璧如道："两和两和。"瞧瞧自己 门前两张白皮，只剩一张，一望叠在空冀门前，当把
剩下一张白皮，送到空冀手里道："一 起给你凑凑数罢。剩下一张不尴不尬，­零零碎碎，
要他作甚。"

When Biru found out that Kongji stole his White, he 'turned the other cheek' and
handed Kongji his remaining White, and satirized him: "I don't have any use
for a single White. Please take it." Which really meant, "You stole one White
from me, why don't you take the other."

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Kongji was the only one to score his hand, while others (non-winning
players) were only watching (without also scoring their hands).

Biru did. The fourth player: literary expression (omission because it was
irrelevant to the author's purpose).

An honest question: could anyone point out any other passage among these novels,
in which explaining side settlements would have been relevant to the author's
purpose?

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
- Kongji would have messed up his pais to the centre;

I explained already, if only you could read. It is habitual for a
player to toss non-scoring parts of his hand into the center.

空冀气得跳脚，把自己四张牌对牌堆里一掼。须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出，又多寻了
一张，一起三张叠在门前，等和家算帐算开，空冀算算道：

Kongji was so upset [by being intercepted for the win] that he stamped his foot,
and [in his anger, having forgotten that the White pair would score] he tossed
his four tiles into the river. After a moment, he remembered his White pair [as
scoring tiles, for 2 points], and [for that purpose] got them back, and found
one more, and place the three White's in front of himself [to be scored as a
concealed triplet, for 8 points plus one faan]. After the winner finished
scoring, he scored [his non-winning hand, for the purpose of side settlements]

--

Of course, in a serious play environment, if you throw your tiles into the
center, you won't be allowed to get them back to score them. The author was
being loose, for the purpose of literary expression. As a mahjong scene in a
fiction, I would say that this scene is quite well-written: it fulfills its
purpose of entertainment quite well. It's quite amusing to read.

[Cofa Tsui]

[I guess my earlier post must have had gone nowhere! I now try to
repost it with as much as I could memorize...]

This is a study about whether "side settlements" existed in the scenes
of mahjong games described in "Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya
(Wang Zhusheng, 1895~1980) in 1927.

(A) General information

1. Ithinc first provided excerpts of scenes of games in verious
chapters of the book. The excerpts can be viewed by serrching topic
'"Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927" dated 1/22/2007 in this
mahjong newsgroup.

2. There was a discussion between Ithinc and Cofa about the existence
of "settlements between non winning players" ("side settlements") in
one of the scene. It was my conclusion that "side settlements" did not
exist. There was no further "follow up" from Ithinc or from others
regarding such conclusion (exception - see 3 next).

3. In a recent post (3/21/2007 9:42PM under same subject line of this
message) Alan objected to the above conclusion, and provided an
alternative version of his understanding of the scene to prove that
the players in the scene were indeed conducting side settlements
(i.e., settling scores between non-winning players).

4. In Ithinc's excerpts there are more than one scene of play. Since
Alan raised his objection, I have reviewed ALL excerpts twice and am
satisfied that side settlements did NOT exist in those scenes. With
the particular scene where game play was described in more detailed, I
have raised several questions to Alan to see how those questions could
be answered if "side settlements" were to exist - Refer to section
(C).

(B) Use of Chinese idioms

Post by Alan Kwan

[Quoting Cofa]
And from the way the writer used it, i.e., quoting
only the second half of the idiom, the portion (first part of the
idiom) about "losing something" is ingored. I guess that's because the
writer recognized that Kongji had in fact lost nothing, because he
didn't own it (the intercepted win) in the first place.

It's a biased argument. Quoting only part of an idiom, but meaning the whole
thing, is very common in Chinese literature. Very often, for an idiom of more
than 4 words, we mean it by saying only 4 words. Even I myself do it often.
The most natural explanation here is that, although the player's win was
intercepted (the loss), he could still recover something in side settlements.

Although this debate about the use of idioms is insignificant to the
study, I wish to point out that it is indeed common to quote part of
an idiom to deal with situation that is LESS THAN whole of situation
the original full idiom is intended for, quite in contrast to what
Alan suggests. Perhaps Alan could provide us some other examples that
partial idiom could still mean to refer to the whole thing - I am
still eager to learn (^_^)

(C) Questions to Alan's challenge, and reply to Alan's reply

1. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
messed up [her] pais to the centre? [I believe Kongji is a lady.]

Post by Alan Kwan
I explained already, if only you could read. It is habitual for a player to
toss non-scoring parts of his hand into the center.

I explained already, if only you could read. It is habitual for a
player to toss non-scoring parts of his hand into the center.

空冀气得跳脚，把自己四张牌对牌堆里一掼。须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出，又多寻了
一张，一起三张叠在门前，等和家算帐算开，空冀算算道：
Kongji was so upset [by being intercepted for the win] that he stamped his foot,
and [in his anger, having forgotten that the White pair would score] he tossed
his four tiles into the river. After a moment, he remembered his White pair [as
scoring tiles, for 2 points], and [for that purpose] got them back, and found
one more, and place the three White's in front of himself [to be scored as a
concealed triplet, for 8 points plus one faan]. After the winner finished
scoring, he scored [his non-winning hand, for the purpose of side settlements]

This is new to me! I am not sure if any reader of this group would
have heard of this "habitual practice." Quite in contrast, it is
habitual that players would mess up their pais to the centre ONLY if
they consider their pais to be useless.

So in this scene, it is only reasonable that Kongji did not consider
her hand to have any value, that she messed it up to the centre.

Even if "habitual practice" is a reason for her act, this won't fit in
the whole story.

Her picking up the thrown away pais later on was for other purpose -
To form a winning hand as if she were the winner, to get some comfort
out of it.

2. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
grabbed pais from other's hand?

Post by Alan Kwan
I explained already.
The text suggested that Konji grabbed it when Biru wasn't paying attention.
Perhaps when everybody was looking at the winning hand.

You only explained "how", but not "why." My understanding is that she
did it for non-scoring purpose, to form a winning hand for her own
comfort ["心想收诸桑榆，不无小补" (Considering getting this back this is not bad
for me.)] - And this is what the context provides. Sicne her hand
would have no value, other players allowed her to get pais back from
the centre, grab pais from others, all before their wide-open eyes!

3. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
cheated on others?

Post by Alan Kwan
How else do you explain that Kongji felt 'very sad' when the others laughed? He
was being sneered at for cheating (and getting caught).

Cheating is suggested by you only, not by the context. If Kongji meant
to cheat, she would not have tossed away her pais in the first place,
not to mention what she did was so obvious I wonder how this can be
classified as an act of "cheat" (i.e., grabbing pais from other's
hand).

There was other reason for her to feel sad.

Post by Alan Kwan

[Quoting Cofa]
Finally, if you read the rest of the script, you'll see Kongji was
doing that for teasing, rather than for real - In effect, other
players were laughing at him!

空冀面上一红，亏他转篷得快，笑着道："我试试你呢，你一张嘴胡说乱道，神志倒还清楚。
Konji was caught cheating, and he admitted that he "did something", but
he tried to deny that he was intentionally cheating (to cheat the others of
their money), but rather was just "testing" Biru.
亚白、复生，各对空冀噗哧一笑。空冀觉得这一笑，比一副三番给人拦和，还难过十倍。
It was not "laughing", it was sneering, and Konji felt ashamed.
The others didn't buy Konji's excuse, but they chose to just laugh it off
rather than taking action (beating Konji up or such), since it's a 'friendly'
game. Konji knew that his excuse didn't really convince, so he felt ashamed.
If he was merely demonstrating winner's scoring (even falsely), he need not feel
ashamed. In fact, since he had a 2-pair wait of 1D and White, it would be
rightful for him to borrow Biru's White to demonstrate how much his hand would
worth had he won on a White.

No doubt "sneering" is a better word, but Kongji was definitely not
felling "ashamed." She was trying to reform a winning hand to get some
comfort (see item 2 above), but other players didn't seem to show her
any mercy. She felt sad ten times more than being intercepted ["比一副三番给人
拦和，还难过十倍"]. Again, it is SAD, not ASHAMED.

4. If they were computing side settlements, why Biru would have given
up his own Baipi ("White Board")?

Post by Alan Kwan
I explained already, if only you could read. Or you don't understand what
'turning the other cheek' mean? That's idiom: typically shortened.
这时璧如道："两和两和。"瞧瞧自己 门前两张白皮，只剩一张，一望叠在空冀门前，当把
剩下一张白皮，送到空冀手里道："一 起给你凑凑数罢。剩下一张不尴不尬，­零零碎碎，
要他作甚。"
When Biru found out that Kongji stole his White, he 'turned the other cheek' and
handed Kongji his remaining White, and satirized him: "I don't have any use
for a single White. Please take it." Which really meant, "You stole one White
from me, why don't you take the other."

What you said was the description of the context. But your answer did
not get to my point. What I meant was: If side settlements were to
follow, why would Biru give out his White to Kongji, instead of asking
Kongji to give the stolen White back to him?

5. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji was the only
one to score his hand, while others (non-winning players) were only
watching (without also scoring their hands).

Post by Alan Kwan
Biru did. The fourth player: literary expression (omission because it was
irrelevant to the author's purpose).

I doubt that Biru was doing what you said. Instead of showing off his
whole hand (for scoring purposes), and instead of asking back the
stolen pai (so that he'd get more points), he gave up his pai (the
White) to Kongji to help her out! In fact, all players were watching
Kongji redoing her hand: they all knew Kongji was playing on her own,
to reform a hand that was irrelevant to others.

-----

MY CONCLUSION: Evidences in this particular scene, and in other scenes
of the book that have been quoted by Ithinc, DO NOT suggest that "side
settlements" existed in the game play.

(C) Publication date of the book

[Subject line: "Ren Hai Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927"]
- Ithinc: I don't find which year the book was published by which
company. But from the book itself, it can be determined that it was
finished in 1926(民国十五年). [Date stamp 1/22/2007 5:06AM]
- Thierry: Ping Jinya's novel "Renhai Chao" (Tides in the Human Sea)
was published in 1935 and dates of Ping Jinya are given as
"(1892-1978)" [Date stamp 1/22/2007 4:12AM]

In either case, I assume "Ren Hai Chao" is not considered late Qing
novel. However, if "NO side settlements" is correct in these games in
late 1920s, it could be a good suggestion that:
- The "non-CC" form of games did exist in the 1920s (as also provided
in some 1920s books by foreign authors);
- A branch of the "Late Qing" games that consist of the feature "NO
settlement between non-winning players" did exist throughout the
1920s.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
(B) Use of Chinese idioms
Although this debate about the use of idioms is insignificant to the
study, I wish to point out that it is indeed common to quote part of
an idiom to deal with situation that is LESS THAN whole of situation
the original full idiom is intended for, quite in contrast to what
Alan suggests. Perhaps Alan could provide us some other examples that
partial idiom could still mean to refer to the whole thing - I am
still eager to learn (^_^)

Example: saying "有口話人" to mean "有口話人，無口話自己". The Japanese has an
exactly corresponding idiom: saying only "人のことをよく言う"
and omitting "自分のことは棚に上げて".

Another example: saying just "州官放火" to mean "只許州官放火，不許百姓點燈".

Another: 各家自掃門前雪. This *always* carries the meaning of the second half,
namely, ignoring of others' affairs.

Post by Cofa Tsui
So in this scene, it is only reasonable that Kongji did not consider
her hand to have any value, that she messed it up to the centre.

That is the case. She (in her temper) forgot that her White pair was worth
points, so she tossed them. This sentence proves my point:

须臾，想起一对白皮，重复­捡出

"After a moment, she remembered her White pair, and got them back."

Post by Cofa Tsui
2. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
grabbed pais from other's hand?

The author was deliberately being vague at that point, as 'literary expression'
for the purpose of dramatizing the later scene, when Kongji's dishonest act was
discovered.

Note that at that point, the winner had not completed scoring his hand. Biru
was paying attention to the winner's hand, and didn't realize that he was losing
a White until later, when he tried to claim 2 points for his White pair.

Post by Cofa Tsui
You only explained "how" [Kongji got the third White], but not "why."

I did. She "found" the White (literal from the text), and out of her dishonesty
and/or greed, she took it for herself.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Sicne her hand
would have no value, other players allowed her to get pais back from
the centre, grab pais from others, all before their wide-open eyes!

Now how do you explain this sentence, which was after Biru gave her the fourth
White:

空冀面上一红，亏他转篷得 快，笑着道：

Kongji's face reddened, and she 'turned around' quickly, and smiled and said: ...

Why did her face have to redden when Biru gave her the fourth White? Note that
the words 'turn around' here mean the figurative changing of the direction of
action, rather than the physical turning of the body. My interpretation is
that, her face reddened because she was caught cheating, and the 'turn around'
meant her finding of an excuse: she was claiming to have done something
("testing Biru") different from she originally intended (namely, cheating),
hence 'turn around'. If she was merely demonstrating winner's scoring, why did
she redden, and why was she turning around?

Cofa also failed to answer the issue that, it was clearly loser's scoring and
not winner's scoring that Kongji was calculating. This point alone is
sufficient to defeat Cofa's interpretation.

Post by Cofa Tsui
3. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
cheated on others?

Post by Alan Kwan
How else do you explain that Kongji felt 'very sad' when the others laughed? He
was being sneered at for cheating (and getting caught).

Cheating is suggested by you only, not by the context.

有口話人

Demonstration of winner's scoring is suggested by you only, not by the context.
In fact, the text undisputably demonstrated loser's scoring.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
亚白、复生，各对空冀噗哧一笑。空冀觉得这一笑，比一副三番给人拦和，还难过十倍。

No doubt "sneering" is a better word, but Kongji was definitely not
felling "ashamed." She was trying to reform a winning hand to get some
comfort (see item 2 above), but other players didn't seem to show her
any mercy. She felt sad ten times more than being intercepted ["比一副三番给人
拦和，还难过十倍"]. Again, it is SAD, not ASHAMED.

To be "10 times as sad" for the useless demonstration being dismissed than for
the actual interrupt of the win? It's not practically justifiable. Has anyone
ever felt that way in an actual situation? Boasting about a hand that didn't
win is very common, and also very commonly dismissed (and rightfully so), that
no one would feel too sad about it. Being sneered at for being caught cheating
is another matter: losing is a matter of skill and money, but cheating is a
matter of morality and honor. Being ashamed was the reason she was "10 times"
as sad.

Post by Cofa Tsui
4. If they were computing side settlements, why Biru would have given
up his own Baipi ("White Board")?

Post by Alan Kwan
I explained already, if only you could read. Or you don't understand what
'turning the other cheek' mean? That's idiom: typically shortened.
这时璧如道："两和两和。"瞧瞧自己 门前两张白皮，只剩一张，一望叠在空冀门前，当把
剩下一张白皮，送到空冀手里道："一 起给你凑凑数罢。剩下一张不尴不尬，­零零碎碎，
要他作甚。"
When Biru found out that Kongji stole his White, he 'turned the other cheek' and
handed Kongji his remaining White, and satirized him: "I don't have any use
for a single White. Please take it." Which really meant, "You stole one White
from me, why don't you take the other."

What you said was the description of the context. But your answer did
not get to my point. What I meant was: If side settlements were to
follow, why would Biru give out his White to Kongji, instead of asking
Kongji to give the stolen White back to him?

It was literal in the text. Biru tried to claim two points for his White pair,
and at that point he discovered that he had only one left, and that Kongji had
three White. So he knew that Biru had stolen his White. And he literally said
that a single White was useless.

Biru claimed only "2 points" for his White pair, so with one White stolen, his
hand is not worth any points.

And I explained why he 'turned the other cheek'. It was sarcasm.

Post by Cofa Tsui
5. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji was the only
one to score his hand, while others (non-winning players) were only
watching (without also scoring their hands).

Post by Alan Kwan
Biru did. The fourth player: literary expression (omission because it was
irrelevant to the author's purpose).

I doubt that Biru was doing what you said. Instead of showing off his
whole hand (for scoring purposes), and instead of asking back the
stolen pai (so that he'd get more points), he gave up his pai (the
White) to Kongji to help her out! In fact, all players were watching
Kongji redoing her hand: they all knew Kongji was playing on her own,
to reform a hand that was irrelevant to others.

Answered above.

How do you explain what Kongji said:

空冀[...]笑着道："我试试你呢，你一张嘴胡说乱道，神志倒还清楚。"

If he took Biru's White openly merely to demonstrate winner's scoring, why did
he say he was "testing" Biru? My explanation is clear: he was caught cheating,
so he claimed to be "testing" Biru as an excuse.

Post by Cofa Tsui
MY CONCLUSION: Evidences in this particular scene, and in other scenes
of the book that have been quoted by Ithinc, DO NOT suggest that "side
settlements" existed in the game play.

I object again. The text clearly elaborated loser's scoring, and hence side
settlements.

Under my interpretation, every sentence, every word in the passage can be
understood logically. On the contrary, Cofa's interpretation contradicts many
parts of the passage, and must be rejected.

[Cofa Tsui]

Example: saying "????" to mean "????,?????". The Japanese has an exactly
corresponding idiom: saying only "?????????"
and omitting "???????????".

Sorry I don't understand Japanese.

Another example: saying just "????" to mean "??????,??????".

(It is only allowed for the state officials to set the fire, but not for the
civilians to light up the lamps.) Saying "??????" can *imply* the unquoted
half, but is not necessary to have to include meaning of the unquoted half.
Am I correct?

Post by Cofa Tsui
So in this scene, it is only reasonable that Kongji did not consider
her hand to have any value, that she messed it up to the centre.

That is the case. She (in her temper) forgot that her White pair was

What do you mean "that is the case?" Do you mean Kongji has considered her
hand to have no value (because no side settlement is in play - As I have
pointed out that your "habitual practice" is not valid)?

??,??????,??­??
"After a moment, she remembered her White pair, and got them back."

And you want us to believe, while side settlements were to follow, Kongji
was still allowed to do all that before all players' wide-open eyes?

Alan, they were playing for heavy money. Kongji's act was simply impossible
if she was scoring her hand for real money (i.e., side settlements were in
play), and for that the other players were to pay her.

Post by Cofa Tsui
2. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
grabbed pais from other's hand?

The author was deliberately being vague at that point, as 'literary
expression' for the purpose of dramatizing the later scene, when Kongji's
dishonest act was discovered.
Note that at that point, the winner had not completed scoring his hand.
Biru was paying attention to the winner's hand, and didn't realize that he
was losing a White until later, when he tried to claim 2 points for his
White pair.

Again it is impossible for Kongji being able to do all those acts (throwing
out her pais, getting them back, and grabbing a White from Biru's hand),
WITHOUT catching other's attention at all, and IF she was scoring her hand
for real and IF others had to pay her money for real!

Post by Cofa Tsui
You only explained "how" [Kongji got the third White], but not "why."

I did. She "found" the White (literal from the text), and out of her
dishonesty and/or greed, she took it for herself.

OK you've said she did it for cheating; then I assume you also meant to
convince us to believe that she could do all acts at her free will and all
others were blind at what she did even knowing that they were going to pay
her money (side settlements) for real, didn't you?

Post by Cofa Tsui
Sicne her hand
would have no value, other players allowed her to get pais back from
the centre, grab pais from others, all before their wide-open eyes!

Now how do you explain this sentence, which was after Biru gave her the
Kongji's face reddened, and she 'turned around' quickly, and smiled and said: ...
Why did her face have to redden when Biru gave her the fourth White? Note
that the words 'turn around' here mean the figurative changing of the
direction of action, rather than the physical turning of the body.

This is because she was caught having grabbed a White from Biru, no doubt.
It could happen when she was grabbing other's White to redo her hand for
teasing, or for her own comfort, couldn't it?

My interpretation is

that, her face reddened because she was caught cheating, and the 'turn
around' meant her finding of an excuse: she was claiming to have done
something ("testing Biru") different from she originally intended (namely,
cheating), hence 'turn around'. If she was merely demonstrating winner's
scoring, why did she redden, and why was she turning around?

I have explained why she reddened, as above. My explanation can fit in her
demonstrating scoring a winning hand, and in scenarios of all of my five
questions.

But if it was cheating as suggested by you, you need to assume lots of
unrealistic acts and to convince us to believe them all.

[snipped - please see bottom]

Post by Cofa Tsui
3. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
cheated on others?

Post by Alan Kwan
How else do you explain that Kongji felt 'very sad' when the others laughed? He
was being sneered at for cheating (and getting caught).

Cheating is suggested by you only, not by the context.

????
Demonstration of winner's scoring is suggested by you only, not by the context.

OK, I interpreted that Kongji was Kongji was scoring her hand for her own
comfort, not for real - This is not provided by the context.

In fact, the text undisputably demonstrated loser's scoring.

See bottom.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
?????,????????????????,?????????,??????

No doubt "sneering" is a better word, but Kongji was definitely not
[feeling] "ashamed." She was trying to reform a winning hand to get some
comfort (see item 2 above), but other players didn't seem to show her
any mercy. She felt sad ten times more than being intercepted ["???????
??,?????"]. Again, it is SAD, not ASHAMED.

To be "10 times as sad" for the useless demonstration being dismissed than
for the actual interrupt of the win? It's not practically justifiable.
Has anyone ever felt that way in an actual situation? Boasting about a
hand that didn't win is very common, and also very commonly dismissed (and
rightfully so), that no one would feel too sad about it. Being sneered at
for being caught cheating is another matter: losing is a matter of skill
and money, but cheating is a matter of morality and honor. Being ashamed
was the reason she was "10 times" as sad.

If you would read the beginning of the passage, Kongji had in fact lost a
lot, and then her 3 fan hand was just intercepted. My understanding is that
she tried to redo her hand for her comfort (of course this involved grabbing
Biru's White Board). She was caught and nobody seemed to show her any mercy,
and for that she felt sad ten times more than her 3 fan hand being
intercepted.

The context clearly said that she was SAD ("??"), not ASHAMED ("??"). The
term ASHAMED ("??") is not used in the passage.

Post by Cofa Tsui
4. If they were computing side settlements, why Biru would have given
up his own Baipi ("White Board")?

Post by Alan Kwan
I explained already, if only you could read. Or you don't understand what
'turning the other cheek' mean? That's idiom: typically shortened.
?????:"?????"???? ??????,????,????????,??
??????,???????:"? ????????????????,­????,
?????"
When Biru found out that Kongji stole his White, he 'turned the other cheek' and
handed Kongji his remaining White, and satirized him: "I don't have any use
for a single White. Please take it." Which really meant, "You stole one White
from me, why don't you take the other."

What you said was the description of the context. But your answer did
not get to my point. What I meant was: If side settlements were to
follow, why would Biru give out his White to Kongji, instead of asking
Kongji to give the stolen White back to him?

It was literal in the text. Biru tried to claim two points for his White
pair, and at that point he discovered that he had only one left, and that
Kongji had three White. So he knew that [Kongji] had stolen his White.
And he literally said that a single White was useless.
Biru claimed only "2 points" for his White pair, so with one White stolen,
his hand is not worth any points.
And I explained why he 'turned the other cheek'. It was sarcasm.

Sarcasm without worrying about having to pay out any money, or without
asking for the stolen pai back so that he didn't need to lose unnecessarily
more, or without even caring about any loss at all? Would all these be
possible only if side settlement was in fact NOT in play?

If side settlement was in play, Biru's act (giving out his points rather
than aking the stolen pai back) would not be convincing either.

Biru was calling out "two hu, two hu" ("two points") - Could that mean that
he was calling to add his two points to Kongji's hand, knowing that her hand
was not for real?

Post by Cofa Tsui
5. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji was the only
one to score [her] hand, while others (non-winning players) were only
watching (without also scoring their hands).

Post by Alan Kwan
Biru did. The fourth player: literary expression (omission because it was
irrelevant to the author's purpose).

I doubt that Biru was doing what you said. Instead of showing off his
whole hand (for scoring purposes), and instead of asking back the
stolen pai (so that he'd get more points), he gave up his pai (the
White) to Kongji to help her out! In fact, all players were watching
Kongji redoing her hand: they all knew Kongji was playing on her own,
to reform a hand that was irrelevant to others.

Answered above.

But your answers are not convincing to me. (I'll leave other readers to make
their judgement.)

??[...]???:"?????,????????,???????"
If he took Biru's White openly merely to demonstrate winner's scoring, why
did he say he was "testing" Biru? My explanation is clear: he was caught
cheating, so he claimed to be "testing" Biru as an excuse.

"Testing" can also apply to Kongji's claiming points for 3 White Board with
one of which being grabbed from Biru, pretending ('testing") Biru not
knowing it.

"Cheating" can also explain Kongji's "testing," but it won't provide
convincing answers to those five questions.

= = = = = = = = =

Cofa also failed to answer the issue that, it was clearly loser's scoring
and not winner's scoring that Kongji was calculating. This point alone is
sufficient to defeat Cofa's interpretation.

I didn't know this point. This may be considered as question #6 and let's
have a look of it (part of the "study").

Ithinc had provided ["Summary of playing scenes in the late 1800s and early
1900s Chinese literature" - Date stamp 3/15/2007 8:39AM]:
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
Playing Scene 1:
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu

Alan added [Date stamp 3/17/2007 5:26AM]:
16 for R
8 for Wh
4 for 9D
2 faan for the dragons.

Is this a sample of "winner's scoring" or "side settlement scoring"? I don't
know. If you use Millington's rules (sections 112-117), it would be likely a
"side settlement scoring" because the bonus for win (10 points for
completing the hand) is missing. But is this for sure how the games in "Ren
Hai Chao" were played (i.e., with bonus for win)?

I tried to find out an answer from another scene of Chapter 16 ["Ren Hai
Chao" written by Ping Jinya in 1927 - Date stamp 1/22/2007 2:58AM]:
?????????,????,??????????????????:"???????"???????:"?????,????,???,????"???????:"?????,???????"

(Sixteen hu [points] for a winning hand.) I don't know how this 16 points
were reached. I guess information from this passage is insufficient to get
an answer. But would this 16 points include any bonus for win?

Given the date of the book (1927+/-), and given that "side settlement in
play" is not convincing, I would suggest that "Bonus for win" could have
been dropped in that period - We might need to read more books to find out.

But at this point, can we say that we *are not sure* whether "winner's
scoring" or "side settlement scoring" was in the scene?

[ithinc]

Post by Cofa Tsui
I tried to find out an answer from another scene of Chapter 16 ["Ren Hai
?????????,????,??????????????????:"???????"???????:"?????,????,???,????"???­????:"?????,???????"
(Sixteen hu [points] for a winning hand.) I don't know how this 16 points
were reached. I guess information from this passage is insufficient to get
an answer. But would this 16 points include any bonus for win?

The 16 points indeed included the bonus for win. It's composed of:
Winning 10pts
Concealed Pung of 5B 4pts
Selfmake 2pts

So Cofa fails to claim that there might be no bonus for win in the 16
points.

ithinc

[Alan Kwan]

Post by ithinc

Post by Cofa Tsui
I tried to find out an answer from another scene of Chapter 16 ["Ren Hai

[Let me repost the Chinese fonts:]
空冀摸一张四索打出，亚白摊牌，和一副索子一色。空冀连忙把四索抢回道："我自己也和了。"摊牌给三人瞧道："三六索四索，统好和的，十六和，十六
和。"亚白抽口冷气道："你自己好和，寻我甚么开心？"

Post by ithinc

Post by Cofa Tsui
(Sixteen hu [points] for a winning hand.) I don't know how this 16 points
were reached. I guess information from this passage is insufficient to get
an answer. But would this 16 points include any bonus for win?

Winning 10pts
Concealed Pung of 5B 4pts
Selfmake 2pts
So Cofa fails to claim that there might be no bonus for win in the 16
points.

But Ithinc, how could we be sure the score elements are the above only
and nothing else, all based on the context?

What's that? "We see the head of a deer, but because we don't see the body, the
body might be that of a horse, and this might be a horse." ?

And this passage in fact reinforced my argument in the other thread, and
defeated Cofa's. What serious mahjong player will allow Kongji to take back
the discarded B4? By Cofa's standard, this passage is "unrealistic", and there
is no other possible interpretation. By my argument, this is again 'literary
expression'; the author deliberately puts it that way to dramatize
Hoi-baak's (?) disappointment, while making him "tighten up and say
that Kongji should not be allowed to take back his discard" would
contradict the author's purpose.

Cofa, that's the way (style) this author wrote. Understood?

[Cofa Tsui]

But Ithinc, how could we be sure the score elements are the above only
and nothing else, all based on the context?

What's that?  "We see the head of a deer, but because we don't see the body, the
body might be that of a horse, and this might be a horse." ?

Alan, why complicated the simple question? If I see the head of a
deer, I certainly won't ask what that is. (Remember your question is
not only for me, other well educated and learned readers as well!)
Here we can only "compute" Kongji's 4 pais in hand (fishing 3, 6 and 4
Sok/Bamboo/String for win, we can establish that she has 4555 in hand,
therefore a "concealed pung of 5" is scored, as suggested by Ithinc).
We cannot establish what else she had in hand based on the context.

And this passage in fact reinforced my argument in the other thread, and
defeated Cofa's.  What serious mahjong player will allow Kongji to take back
the discarded B4?  By Cofa's standard, this passage is "unrealistic", and there
is no other possible interpretation.  By my argument, this is again 'literary
expression'; the author deliberately puts it that way to dramatize
Hoi-baak's (?) disappointment, while making him "tighten up and say
that Kongji should not be allowed to take back his discard" would
contradict the author's purpose.

Discarding a pai and get it back immediately/right away for one's use,
is a permitted move, as per my understanding of the Millington's
rules. [空冀*连忙*把四索抢回道... (Kongji grabbed the 4 Sok back *immediately*
and said...)]. This act is very different to her act in another scene
(in which she tossed away her pais and got one from other's hand).

Cofa, that's the way (style) this author wrote.  Understood?

Your points, but not convincing.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Discarding a pai and get it back immediately/right away for one's use,
is a permitted move, as per my understanding of the Millington's
rules. [空冀*连忙*把四索抢回道... (Kongji grabbed the 4 Sok back *immediately*
and said...)]. This act is very different to her act in another scene
(in which she tossed away her pais and got one from other's hand).

What Millington are you reading? Rule #71:

"After a declaration of chow, pong, kong or Mahjong, the discarder may not take
his tile back."

And the reason for this rule is very obvious (unlike the rule why one may not
discard non-scoring parts of his hand).

If you allow people to take back his discard when you claim win - Cofa, I really
want to play mahjong with you - for BIG money. :)

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Discarding a pai and get it back immediately/right away for one's use,
is a permitted move, as per my understanding of the Millington's
rules. [空冀*连忙*把四索抢回道... (Kongji grabbed the 4 Sok back *immediately*
and said...)]. This act is very different to her act in another scene
(in which she tossed away her pais and got one from other's hand).

"After a declaration of chow, pong, kong or Mahjong, the discarder may not take
his tile back."
And the reason for this rule is very obvious (unlike the rule why one may not
discard non-scoring parts of his hand).

I guess quoting Millington's rules is incorrect here (Millington's
book came out in 1977 only). Discarding a pai and get it back
immediately/right away for one's use *might be* a permitted move at
that time, which is very different to Kongji's act in another scene
(in which [he] tossed away [his] pais and got one from other's hand).

Post by Alan Kwan
If you allow people to take back his discard when you claim win - Cofa, I really
want to play mahjong with you - for BIG money. :)

Well, whoever the players I don't see any difference if this is the
rule that applies to everyone. Besides, the claimed-back pai is meant
to be used to form a win immediately.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Discarding a pai and get it back
immediately/right away for one's use *might be* a permitted move at
that time.

This is silly. No one (playing seriously, for the money) would *ever* allow
taking back a tile after a "win" claim. It was a fictional, friendly game in
which this was allowed. And for the same reason, other "violations" were
also allowed - all for the author's purpose, namely literary entertainment.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
(It is only allowed for the state officials to set the fire, but not for the
civilians to light up the lamps.) Saying "??????" can *imply* the unquoted
half, but is not necessary to have to include meaning of the unquoted half.
Am I correct?

No. The first half has no meaning apart from the second half.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
So in this scene, it is only reasonable that Kongji did not consider
her hand to have any value, that she messed it up to the centre.

That is the case. She (in her temper) forgot that her White pair was

What do you mean "that is the case?" Do you mean Kongji has considered her
hand to have no value (because no side settlement is in play -

Of course not. The text "Kongji remebered her White pair" implied that she forgot
that the four tiles in her hand was worth any points, so she tossed them,
intending to score only the exposed part of her hand.

Post by Cofa Tsui
As I have
pointed out that your "habitual practice" is not valid)?

Do you have any proof? Millington does have the rule against it - but
Millington's rules are quite different from "common/casual" rules at that
time, as he himself admitted. From a logical point of view, there is
no useful reason to prohibit players from tossing their non-scoring tiles.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
"After a moment, she remembered her White pair, and got them back."

And you want us to believe, while side settlements were to follow, Kongji
was still allowed to do all that before all players' wide-open eyes?
Alan, they were playing for heavy money. Kongji's act was simply impossible
if she was scoring her hand for real money (i.e., side settlements were in
play), and for that the other players were to pay her.

And the passage was fiction, and its purpose was drama. Regardless of the
size of the money bet, they were not playing cutthroat: it's a friendly game.

And Cofa, you fail to justify your interpretation in face of this sentence.
No matter how much you challenge mine, your interpretation remains unacceptable
if you fail to resolve its contradictions with parts of the text (which you tend
to 'conveniently' ignore).

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
2. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
grabbed pais from other's hand?

The author was deliberately being vague at that point, as 'literary
expression' for the purpose of dramatizing the later scene, when Kongji's
dishonest act was discovered.
Note that at that point, the winner had not completed scoring his hand.
Biru was paying attention to the winner's hand, and didn't realize that he
was losing a White until later, when he tried to claim 2 points for his
White pair.

Again it is impossible for Kongji being able to do all those acts (throwing
out her pais, getting them back, and grabbing a White from Biru's hand),
WITHOUT catching other's attention at all, and IF she was scoring her hand
for real and IF others had to pay her money for real!

The others probably noticed that he tossed some tiles and got them back, but
they were not challenging him because it was supposed to be a friendly game.
And an even more important reason was that, it was drama. The purpose of the
passage was to dramatize Kongji's embarassment of being caught cheating, not to
ascertain how carefully mahjong players watched the table during scoring time to
prevent cheating.

The author deliberately made Kongji toss her tiles, so that she could grab an
extra tile without drawing attention when she got them back. Without the first
act, it does sound awkward if she could steal an extra White without anyone
noticing. For the author's purpose, it's not important whether certain gamblers
would allow someone to take tiles back - it's important that the action of
taking tiles back camouflaged the act of steaing a tile.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
Why did her face have to redden when Biru gave her the fourth White? Note
that the words 'turn around' here mean the figurative changing of the
direction of action, rather than the physical turning of the body.

This is because she was caught having grabbed a White from Biru, no doubt.
It could happen when she was grabbing other's White to redo her hand for
teasing, or for her own comfort, couldn't it?

Why does she has to redden when she was "caught" doing something which she meant
to do openly in the first place? Why "turn around"? Your explanation is
illogical and unconvincing.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
To be "10 times as sad" for the useless demonstration being dismissed than
for the actual interrupt of the win? It's not practically justifiable.
Has anyone ever felt that way in an actual situation? Boasting about a
hand that didn't win is very common, and also very commonly dismissed (and
rightfully so), that no one would feel too sad about it. Being sneered at
for being caught cheating is another matter: losing is a matter of skill
and money, but cheating is a matter of morality and honor. Being ashamed
was the reason she was "10 times" as sad.

If you would read the beginning of the passage, Kongji had in fact lost a
lot, and then her 3 fan hand was just intercepted. My understanding is that
she tried to redo her hand for her comfort (of course this involved grabbing
Biru's White Board). She was caught and nobody seemed to show her any mercy,
and for that she felt sad ten times more than her 3 fan hand being
intercepted.

Which is unrealistic (and serves no purpose for the author - it looks like
"adding feet to a snake").

Cofa, if *you* are in the same situation, how many *times* will you be as sad?
1/2 ? 2/3 ? 10, anyone?

Post by Cofa Tsui
The context clearly said that she was SAD ("??"), not ASHAMED ("??"). The
term ASHAMED ("??") is not used in the passage.

"Ashamed" is my interpretation. She was "10 times as sad" because she was
ashamed. You didn't answer my question.

Post by Cofa Tsui
Sarcasm without worrying about having to pay out any money, or without
asking for the stolen pai back so that he didn't need to lose unnecessarily
more, or without even caring about any loss at all? Would all these be
possible only if side settlement was in fact NOT in play?

It's a friendly game, and Biru was trying to be clever. And this is the
author's purpose of the passage: to dramatize Kongji's embarassment of being
caught cheating, worsened by the sarcasm from a clever opponent.

Why *must* the author write that "Biru tightened up and demanded the tile back",
even if the current writing is fulfilling /his/ purpose better? What /fun/
would the passage be, if Biru acted as you demanded and they erupted into a
fruitless quarrel?

Post by Cofa Tsui
If side settlement was in play, Biru's act (giving out his points rather
than aking the stolen pai back) would not be convincing either.
Biru was calling out "two hu, two hu" ("two points") - Could that mean that
he was calling to add his two points to Kongji's hand, knowing that her hand
was not for real?

And you're talking about "interpretation" - don't you think this is too wild?
If someone declares "two hu", the most natural interpretation is that he's
claiming that score for himself - the "Classical" process as we all know it.

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
If he took Biru's White openly merely to demonstrate winner's scoring, why
did he say he was "testing" Biru? My explanation is clear: he was caught
cheating, so he claimed to be "testing" Biru as an excuse.

"Testing" can also apply to Kongji's claiming points for 3 White Board with
one of which being grabbed from Biru, pretending ('testing") Biru not
knowing it.

You say that, yet you challenge my similar claim that Kongji took the White from
Biru without him noticing? So did he took the White openly to demonstrate
winner's scoring, or did he stole it from Biru successfully without him
noticing? If the latter case, why did Biru find out later (without the need to
display the White pair for the purpose of side settlements)?

Isn't all your explanations too "forced" (badly made-up)?

Post by Cofa Tsui
Ithinc had provided ["Summary of playing scenes in the late 1800s and early
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu
16 for R
8 for Wh
4 for 9D
2 faan for the dragons.
Is this a sample of "winner's scoring" or "side settlement scoring"? I don't
know. If you use Millington's rules (sections 112-117), it would be likely a
"side settlement scoring" because the bonus for win (10 points for
completing the hand) is missing. But is this for sure how the games in "Ren
Hai Chao" were played (i.e., with bonus for win)?

The simple fact is that, if this were winner's scoring, it would be inconsistent
with the scoring in all other fictions we're studying, nor does it match the
scoring of any system we observe then or later. Has any scoring system existed
which give only 2 faan for a Mixed One-Suit hand with two Dragon triplets? And
has anyone seen a 'classical' (i.e. triplet-point based) system *after* the 20's
which did not award points for winning? Cofa, where's your justification for
even saying that there's a doubt?

It's like pointing at a deer, but doubting that it's a horse even though it
looks in every way like a deer. "This looks in every way like a deer, but we're
not sure if there's an unknown kind of 'horse' which looks like this." Why
waste time and electrons?

Post by Cofa Tsui
But at this point, can we say that we *are not sure* whether "winner's
scoring" or "side settlement scoring" was in the scene?

We cannot. It is painfully obvious that it's NOT winner's scoring that was
being demonstrated.

[Tom Sloper]

Subject: pointless debate

Well, it's not entirely pointless. This debate is a perfect case in point
illustrating the fact that translation must inevitably entail
interpretation, that there's no such thing as translation without
interpretation. Heck, just a sentence in English (that doesn't need
translation into English) still remains subject to interpretation.
Tom

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Tom Sloper
This debate is a perfect case in point
illustrating the fact that translation must inevitably entail
interpretation, that there's no such thing as translation without
interpretation. Heck, just a sentence in English (that doesn't need
translation into English) still remains subject to interpretation.

Well, considering that something as prominant as the four Gospels in the Bible
can remain mis-interpreted by billions for 2000 years ...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jimstephens5/Bible/Jesus.html

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
(It is only allowed for the state officials to set the fire, but not for
the civilians to light up the lamps.) Saying "??????" can *imply* the
unquoted half, but is not necessary to have to include meaning of the
unquoted half. Am I correct?

No. The first half has no meaning apart from the second half.

When a guy known to be a police goes through the red light as a habit and
nobody in town dares to say a word, we can use the first half of the idiom
to describe the situation (it is only allowed for the state officials to set
the fire), but it is not necessarily to mean the remaining part of the story
must apply (others are not allowed to go at green light).

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
So in this scene, it is only reasonable that Kongji did not consider
her hand to have any value, that she messed it up to the centre.

That is the case. She (in her temper) forgot that her White pair was

What do you mean "that is the case?" Do you mean Kongji has considered
her hand to have no value (because no side settlement is in play -

Of course not. The text "Kongji remebered her White pair" implied that she forgot
that the four tiles in her hand was worth any points, so she tossed them,
intending to score only the exposed part of her hand.

Now I know.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
As I have
pointed out that your "habitual practice" is not valid)?

Do you have any proof? Millington does have the rule against it - but
Millington's rules are quite different from "common/casual" rules at that
time, as he himself admitted. From a logical point of view, there is
no useful reason to prohibit players from tossing their non-scoring tiles.

I have no proof from the novel (proof that such "habitual practice" is not
valid). It is the same question as if I see anyone suffle the pais and stack
them up.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
"After a moment, she remembered her White pair, and got them back."

And you want us to believe, while side settlements were to follow, Kongji
was still allowed to do all that before all players' wide-open eyes?
Alan, they were playing for heavy money. Kongji's act was simply
impossible if she was scoring her hand for real money (i.e., side
settlements were in play), and for that the other players were to pay
her.

And the passage was fiction, and its purpose was drama. Regardless of the
size of the money bet, they were not playing cutthroat: it's a friendly game.

Now I know.

Post by Alan Kwan
And Cofa, you fail to justify your interpretation in face of this sentence.
No matter how much you challenge mine, your interpretation remains unacceptable
if you fail to resolve its contradictions with parts of the text (which you tend
to 'conveniently' ignore).

In the past two posts or so I have been trying to answer to you point by
point. Please repeat any question that I've missed.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
2. If they were computing side settlements, why Kongji would have
grabbed pais from other's hand?

The author was deliberately being vague at that point, as 'literary
expression' for the purpose of dramatizing the later scene, when Kongji's
dishonest act was discovered.
Note that at that point, the winner had not completed scoring his hand.
Biru was paying attention to the winner's hand, and didn't realize that
he was losing a White until later, when he tried to claim 2 points for
his White pair.

Again it is impossible for Kongji being able to do all those acts
(throwing out her pais, getting them back, and grabbing a White from
Biru's hand), WITHOUT catching other's attention at all, and IF she was
scoring her hand for real and IF others had to pay her money for real!

The others probably noticed that he tossed some tiles and got them back,
but they were not challenging him because it was supposed to be a friendly
game. And an even more important reason was that, it was drama. The
purpose of the passage was to dramatize Kongji's embarassment of being
caught cheating, not to ascertain how carefully mahjong players watched
the table during scoring time to prevent cheating.
The author deliberately made Kongji toss her tiles, so that she could grab
an extra tile without drawing attention when she got them back. Without
the first
act, it does sound awkward if she could steal an extra White without anyone
noticing. For the author's purpose, it's not important whether certain
gamblers would allow someone to take tiles back - it's important that the
action of taking tiles back camouflaged the act of steaing a tile.

Now I know. Thanks.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
Why did her face have to redden when Biru gave her the fourth White?
Note that the words 'turn around' here mean the figurative changing of
the direction of action, rather than the physical turning of the body.

This is because she was caught having grabbed a White from Biru, no
doubt. It could happen when she was grabbing other's White to redo her
hand for teasing, or for her own comfort, couldn't it?

Why does she has to redden when she was "caught" doing something which she
meant to do openly in the first place? Why "turn around"? Your
explanation is illogical and unconvincing.

She's redoing her hand openly but not grabbing other's pai. That's the
reason why her face got red and why she reacted quickly when Biru pointed
out that she'd grabbed a White from him. You think this is "illogical and
unconvincing" but at least it is not impossible, right?

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
To be "10 times as sad" for the useless demonstration being dismissed
than for the actual interrupt of the win? It's not practically
justifiable. Has anyone ever felt that way in an actual situation?
Boasting about a hand that didn't win is very common, and also very
commonly dismissed (and rightfully so), that no one would feel too sad
losing is a matter of skill and money, but cheating is a matter of
morality and honor. Being ashamed was the reason she was "10 times" as
sad.

If you would read the beginning of the passage, Kongji had in fact lost a
lot, and then her 3 fan hand was just intercepted. My understanding is
that she tried to redo her hand for her comfort (of course this involved
grabbing Biru's White Board). She was caught and nobody seemed to show
her any mercy, and for that she felt sad ten times more than her 3 fan
hand being intercepted.

Which is unrealistic (and serves no purpose for the author - it looks like
"adding feet to a snake").

I got your point. Thanks.

Post by Alan Kwan
Cofa, if *you* are in the same situation, how many *times* will you be as sad?
1/2 ? 2/3 ? 10, anyone?

If I were in the situation, first of all, things like you suggested would be
impossible to happen - It is impossible for me to toss away even one pai
from my hand if I were to score my hand for money, not to mention if I were
to cheat before others' wide-open eyes and nobody would protest. On the
other hand and in a no side settlement situation, if I have lost a lot, then
if my 3 fan hand is being intercepted, and if I get a pai from others and
try to rebuild a winning hand for my own comfort, everyong while knowing
what I am doing but would still tease at me and show no mercy, then yes, I
would be very, very upset and sad.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
The context clearly said that she was SAD ("??"), not ASHAMED ("??"). The
term ASHAMED ("??") is not used in the passage.

"Ashamed" is my interpretation. She was "10 times as sad" because she was
ashamed. You didn't answer my question.

At least you agreed ASHAMED is not used in the passage. "Ashamed" is used to
fit in the "cheating" situations - They are both your interpretation. I got
your point, thanks.

Again if I've missed any of your question, please repeat it. I've tried to
answer to you point by point. Please repeat it if I've missed any.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Sarcasm without worrying about having to pay out any money, or without
asking for the stolen pai back so that he didn't need to lose
unnecessarily more, or without even caring about any loss at all? Would
all these be possible only if side settlement was in fact NOT in play?

It's a friendly game, and Biru was trying to be clever. And this is the
author's purpose of the passage: to dramatize Kongji's embarassment of
being caught cheating, worsened by the sarcasm from a clever opponent.

Your point again. Got it!

Post by Alan Kwan
Why *must* the author write that "Biru tightened up and demanded the tile
back", even if the current writing is fulfilling /his/ purpose better?
What /fun/ would the passage be, if Biru acted as you demanded and they
erupted into a
fruitless quarrel?

If that's your point. But on the other hand, I do wonder why the author did
not tell the readers even the least about the "cheating" - This could
equally also serve the purposes and even more so, if there was cheating in
the scene. This is my opinion.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
If side settlement was in play, Biru's act (giving out his points rather
than aking the stolen pai back) would not be convincing either.
Biru was calling out "two hu, two hu" ("two points") - Could that mean
that he was calling to add his two points to Kongji's hand, knowing that
her hand was not for real?

And you're talking about "interpretation" - don't you think this is too wild?
If someone declares "two hu", the most natural interpretation is that he's
claiming that score for himself - the "Classical" process as we all know it.

That was just my question. Calling out (vs. "declares") "two hu" and
followed by giving out the White to Kongji would not be weird at all, not to
mention if Biru knew that he got nothing to lose by doing that (Kongji's
hand was not for real).

Claiming (note, "claiming") two White for two points in "Classical" is
normal; claiming two points then giving out the pais to another player,
which implying giving out money to that player, with all other players on
the table allowing the act, cannot be normal in any classical games. If you
meant to convince us to apply all these in the scene, I can only say: I got
your point.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
If he took Biru's White openly merely to demonstrate winner's scoring,
why did he say he was "testing" Biru? My explanation is clear: he was
caught cheating, so he claimed to be "testing" Biru as an excuse.

"Testing" can also apply to Kongji's claiming points for 3 White Board
with one of which being grabbed from Biru, pretending ('testing") Biru
not knowing it.

You say that, yet you challenge my similar claim that Kongji took the
White from Biru without him noticing? So did he took the White openly to
demonstrate winner's scoring, or did he stole it from Biru successfully
without him noticing? If the latter case, why did Biru find out later
(without the need to display the White pair for the purpose of side
settlements)?
Isn't all your explanations too "forced" (badly made-up)?

I didn't say Biru didn't know it. I said Kongji *pretending ('testing") Biru
not knowing it.* My understanding of the text is that Biru certainly knew
it, so did all other players! (How could it be possible they didn't?) If you
read the descriptions about how Biru calling out "two hu two hu" you'll
know: Biru didn't arrange his hand first to determine the score before
"claiming" his points; in contrast, he knew he had two points to give out to
Kongji hence he's calling out "two hu" first.

Anyway, I won't call your explanations too "forced" or badly made-up; I
don't think you have such intention (I know Michael's watching ^_^). I don't
have bad intention as you've suggested. I just noticed you've called the
debate "pointless." I would agree with Tom - I consider the discussions are
healthy and constructive without too much heat (so far ^_^), and would
certainly help researchers and people make an informed decision. And that's
the purpose of my participation.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Ithinc had provided ["Summary of playing scenes in the late 1800s and
"Ren hai chao"(Ping Jinya, 1927)
===========================================
A loser's hand: RRRR, 999D, 345D(or 234D, or 456D), WhWhWh 1D (Indeed
the player had only two White in hand, but he picked a 3rd White on
bedlam)
Unspecified: 16 hu
Unspecified: 8 hu
Unspecified: 4 hu
Unspecified: 2 doubles
Total = 112 hu
16 for R
8 for Wh
4 for 9D
2 faan for the dragons.
Is this a sample of "winner's scoring" or "side settlement scoring"? I
don't know. If you use Millington's rules (sections 112-117), it would be
likely a "side settlement scoring" because the bonus for win (10 points
for completing the hand) is missing. But is this for sure how the games
in "Ren Hai Chao" were played (i.e., with bonus for win)?

The simple fact is that, if this were winner's scoring, it would be
inconsistent with the scoring in all other fictions we're studying, nor
does it match the scoring of any system we observe then or later.

[...]

This novel is of the late 1920s. Without any evidence of details of scoring
of the games in the novel in place I certainly have doubt, even though other
rules like Millington's can be used as a reference. And whether this novel
can be connected to those of the 1890-1911, I certainly don't think it's a
"simple fact" at all as you suggested, without any evidence.

I believe this novel (1927) can be a start point for researchers, to study
any non-CC developments of mahjong between late Qing and the 19502/60s.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
This novel is of the late 1920s. Without any evidence of details of scoring
of the games in the novel in place I certainly have doubt, even though other
rules like Millington's can be used as a reference. And whether this novel
can be connected to those of the 1890-1911, I certainly don't think it's a
"simple fact" at all as you suggested, without any evidence.

The clearest evidence is in the same passage:

空冀[...]等白皮一同 双碰到三番

This sentence indicates that Kongji was calling for a 3 faan hand. But after
getting the White, he scored only 2 faan. Are you trying to suggest that the
scoring rules then awarded 1 faan for 2-pair call (but not for single-eye call)?
Or that the hand would be 3 faan with a 1D triplet, but only 2 faan with a
White triplet? Let's go to sleep.

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
This novel is of the late 1920s. Without any evidence of details of scoring
of the games in the novel in place I certainly have doubt, even though other
rules like Millington's can be used as a reference. And whether this novel
can be connected to those of the 1890-1911, I certainly don't think it's a
"simple fact" at all as you suggested, without any evidence.

空冀[...]等白皮一同 双碰到三番
This sentence indicates that Kongji was calling for a 3 faan hand.  But after
getting the White, he scored only 2 faan.  Are you trying to suggest that the
scoring rules then awarded 1 faan for 2-pair call (but not for single-eye call)?
  Or that the hand would be 3 faan with a 1D triplet, but only 2 faan with a
White triplet?  Let's go to sleep.

In your previous post, you seemed to have mixed up this novel (1927
Ren Hai Chao) with those of the late Qing ("in all other fictions

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
The simple fact is that, if this were winner's scoring, it would be
inconsistent with the scoring in all other fictions we're studying, nor
does it match the scoring of any system we observe then or later.

[...]

My previous post was just to remind you of this.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui

Post by Alan Kwan
空冀[...]等白皮一同 双碰到三番
This sentence indicates that Kongji was calling for a 3 faan hand. But after
getting the White, he scored only 2 faan. Are you trying to suggest that the
scoring rules then awarded 1 faan for 2-pair call (but not for single-eye call)?
Or that the hand would be 3 faan with a 1D triplet, but only 2 faan with a
White triplet? Let's go to sleep.

In your previous post, you seemed to have mixed up this novel (1927
Ren Hai Chao) with those of the late Qing ("in all other fictions

It was perfectly reasonable to assume that the rules were mostly similar -
because it was *evident* in the descriptions.

And you cannot answer this point. Until you answer this point, we can say that
your interpretation must be rejected, and the scene in question undoubtedly
involves side settlements.

[Cofa Tsui]

"Alan Kwan" <***@nospam> wrote in message news:460d1a8a$***@127.0.0.1...
[... moved to the bottom]

Post by Alan Kwan
And you cannot answer this point. Until you answer this point, we can say
that your interpretation must be rejected, and the scene in question
undoubtedly involves side settlements.

Alan, we might have run the big circle for nothing, that I just realized it
to be unnecessary. I just found that we have a much simpler way to determine
if side settlement is in play - With the following scene from the 1927
novel, could you demonstrate what would be a "winner's scoring" and "loser's

Post by Alan Kwan

??[...]????? ?????
This sentence indicates that Kongji was calling for a 3 faan hand. But after
getting the White, he scored only 2 faan. Are you trying to suggest that the
scoring rules then awarded 1 faan for 2-pair call (but not for single-eye call)?
Or that the hand would be 3 faan with a 1D triplet, but only 2 faan with a
White triplet? Let's go to sleep.

[Alan Kwan]

Post by Cofa Tsui
Alan, we might have run the big circle for nothing, that I just realized it
to be unnecessary. I just found that we have a much simpler way to determine
if side settlement is in play - With the following scene from the 1927
novel, could you demonstrate what would be a "winner's scoring" and "loser's

What's your question? If your question is, "can we derive the scoring scheme
from the novel", then it's an unreasonable and stupid question, because the
passage is fiction, and its purpose is dramatic entertainment and not a mahjong
textbook.

If our question is, "are side settlements involved in said scene", then it is
perfectly reasonable to apply what we learned from elsewhere about side
settlements to the scene. We know (from other sources, such as *mahjong
textbooks*) that in loser's scoring, one doesn't get any points for winning
because it has not won, and one doesn't get a faan for Mixed One-Suit because it
is not a complete Mixed One-Suit hand. Thus the answer is obvious.

If your question is to elaborate the scoring, here they are:

[RRRR] [D999] [some sequence with D4] WhWh D11

win on discard, White:

R 16
D9 4
Wh 4
win 10
2-pair call 2
--------------
total 36

1 faan for Red
1 faan for White
1 faan for Mixed One-Suit

36 x 3 faan = 288


loser's scoring, with stolen White:

[RRRR] [D999] WhWhWh

R 16
D9 4
Wh 8
------------
total 28

1 faan for Red
1 faan for White

28 x 2 faan = 112

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by Cofa Tsui
Alan, we might have run the big circle for nothing, that I just realized
it to be unnecessary. I just found that we have a much simpler way to
determine if side settlement is in play - With the following scene from
the 1927 novel, could you demonstrate what would be a "winner's scoring"

What's your question? If your question is, "can we derive the scoring
scheme from the novel", then it's an unreasonable and stupid question,
because the passage is fiction, and its purpose is dramatic entertainment
and not a mahjong textbook.

My question was for the following...

Post by Alan Kwan
If our question is, "are side settlements involved in said scene", then it
is perfectly reasonable to apply what we learned from elsewhere about side
settlements to the scene. We know (from other sources, such as *mahjong
textbooks*) that in loser's scoring, one doesn't get any points for
winning because it has not won, and one doesn't get a faan for Mixed
One-Suit because it is not a complete Mixed One-Suit hand. Thus the
answer is obvious.
[RRRR] [D999] [some sequence with D4] WhWh D11
R 16
D9 4
Wh 4
win 10
2-pair call 2
--------------
total 36
1 faan for Red
1 faan for White
1 faan for Mixed One-Suit
36 x 3 faan = 288
[RRRR] [D999] WhWhWh
R 16
D9 4
Wh 8
------------
total 28
1 faan for Red
1 faan for White
28 x 2 faan = 112

This shall suggest that the scene in the 1927 novel involved "side
settlement". Thanks!

P.S. Any detail about the *mahjong textbooks* and when was it dated?

[m***@aol.com]

On Mar 19, 6:05�am, Alan Kwan <***@nospam> wrote:

Hello Alan.

Post by Alan Kwan
The playing rules today (apart from the scoring rules) are largely
unified, so it is a safe bet that they have a unified origin.
If playing rules were unified at some point, it would be hard to
imagine that the scoring rules were not also largely unified then,
together as one set of rules for the game.

Thank you for your reply. Most interesting. I was wondering how you
perceive the 'form' of this unification process? For example, I have
wondered whether, to use a term from evolution theory, the 'form'
resembled 'mosaic evolution' - that is one part or parts of the game-
play remained stable over a long period while another part or parts
evolved rapidly. So the end result is a composite unified scheme.

This can also be applied to the tile set as well. It is perfectly
possible that there were perhaps three (or even more) forms of tile
set in existence by 1890. The form in this case is dependant on the
tile iconography and sometimes by the number of tiles. Indeed, by 1923
there were perhaps four forms of iconography and two forms of tile
numbers - and maybe three forms.

I have commented on a tile set that appears to have primitive (very
early) iconography on some tiles whilst having modern iconogrpahy on
others. This primitive feature is therefore a relict.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
I would certainly be more interested in *your* reconstruction of a
unified scheme of scoring based on the Late Qing novels (even if it
was similar to Haibara's)

If I were to do it, it would be similar to Haibara's, except for
side settlements. �There were not too many variables.

Sure. But I presume you would give your reasoning behind its
construction. That is what would be most interesting to read.

Post by Alan Kwan
�> The lack of documentary evidence of side settlements does not mean
�> that they did not exist (as you point out, because of the nature of
�> the documentation the evidence of their existence may have been left
�> out). But is this good enough reason for thinking they did exist? Not
�> for me. This reason only makes the proposition, that side settlements
�> did exist, only somewhat more likely than the proposition that they
�> did not exist.
Side settlements are a puzzle, because while one can easily suggest an obivous
reason for its elimination (namely, that it's too complicated and cumbersome),
it would be harder to imagine why anyone would want to add it if it was not in
place to begin with. �And in such case, said shortcomings would probably prevent
its propagation. �That's why I cannot easily vote Haibara down, even if there
was a lack of evidence in the earlier novels.
Most other major (i.e. "standardized") changes in mahjong scoring development
history can be soundly explained. �But adding side settlements would be an
upstream trip. �Especially if we're talking about the time and place of the
1920's Shanghai "western" circle (Asami's suggestion of where side settlements
were introduced), when inflation features such as 20-point-base, 10-point or
1-faan pinfu, etc. were starting to creep in - they made side settlements less
and less significant, so everyone's first reaction would have been, "why
bother?" �Side settlements were meaningful (i.e. worth the trouble) only in
Haibara's game.

Interesting explanation. I had wondered whether a form of the 'Haibara
rules' was being played in Japan in his time. That is, for some reason
it too was a relict.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
As far as I am aware, there is no actual evidence,
apart from a very close similarity, that Haibara compiled his rules
from these novels? Further, the fact that his rules were attributed
(by him?) to the 1850's further weakens the veracity of this link.

I need to access his original publication and read it. �But it's not easy to locate.

Ok.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
We just simply don't know enough about the context to begin to cast
aspersions on the nature of the individual involved. Having said that,
because of your good reasons put forward in other posts, I think that
Wilkinson's observations, when mentioned, should be accompanied with
caveats as to the *possible* problems with those observations.

IMO, regardless of which was the truth, his paper had little importance for /my/
purpose, because mahjong either evolved (in a unified manner) /beyond/ his
version, or it had been evolving in a different direction /apart from/ it. �It
could not cast any significant influence directly on any modern system.

Sure. My inclination is that there were different forms of tile set
and game-play in existence over quite a long time period - perhaps 70
years or so - some co-existing whilst others followed. I had wondered
whether it was the interaction of these forms and the result of the
interactions that we a glimpsing in the scant documentation we have. A
dominant form was taking shape (your unification process) over this
period but others were still kicking around? Or perhaps this is a
naive explanation.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by m***@aol.com
In the same post as immediately above you replied to Thierry's
comment...

I really should shut up and leave the discussion on mahjong sets to you experts,
and focus on my own area. �:b

Absolutely not. I welcomed your queries and observations. It is
imperative that our reasoning and assumptions are questioned, in a
courteous way, because none of us are infallible, obviously.
Questioning others explanations and arguments is not discourtesy but a
quest to tighten them up or discard them or put them on the shelf. I
welcome questions about what I have said from anyone. If I am wrong I
can then throw the error out and try something different. I hope you
realise I always take the most charitable interpretation of what
others say and theirs possible motives and then try to discuss their
reasoning etc.

Hence, your questions were perfectly valid and I and others have
pondered the same thing - though not on this group I don't think. I
mentioned in my articles the problem of lack of data and of selection
bias. But once that is acknowledged then I can apportion my discussion
accordingly.

Cheers
Michael

[ithinc]

Post by Alan Kwan
Thanks for your summary. Great work!
We can see that, the earlier versions look like Haibara scoring (except possibly
for side settlements), while the later versions have some features added
('inflation').
Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Maybe. But how could he date back to 1850s from these info?

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by ithinc
"Haishang hua liezhuan"(Han Bangqing, 1892~1894)
===========================================
100 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The East won a hand of Pure One Suit of Dots.
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 80 hu

The 3 doubles are of course for Pure One-Suit.

Post by ithinc
If the winner didn't discard the 6D but discarded the 7D before, he
three Pungs: 12 hu
Winning: 10 hu
Unspecified: 3 doubles
Total = 176 hu

Based on other info in the passage (which tiles he is calling for, etc.),
this is probably the exact same hand as the one in "Shi wei gui" quoted below.
Perhaps the latter copied from the former?

I agree.

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by ithinc
"Haishang fanhua meng"(Sun Jiazhen, 1898)
===========================================
50 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The winning hand: RRR, 555B, WhWhWh 9999B 1B + 1B (Whether the Pung of
White is concealed or not, is Unspecified) (The tiles before a comma
is a melded set, the same hereafter)
The winner gone out by selfdraw.
Total = 496 hu, cutted to a limit(300 hu), no detailed scoring
procedure was given.

4 for R
2 for 5B
8 for Wh
32 for 9B
4 for all-pung hand
2 for single call (1B)
10 for winning
--
62 fu total
1 faan for R
1 faan for Wh
1 faan for Mixed One-Suit
62 x 8 = 496

I would give out a different scoring, 2 for selfdrawn plus 2 for
winning tile forming a major pair instead of your 4 for all-pung hand.
I think the author could had missed 1 double in his mind. I cannot
find any other example to validate Haibara's several 4 points' scoring
elements. If there're 2 pts for single wait, it's no reason not to
score for selfdrawn.

Post by Alan Kwan
[...]
This collection of novels do seem a lot more credible than the confused
"field notes" (which was not a rules document intentionally published as a
rules document) of a foreigner.

Yes, you finally agree that they could be reliable. But of course,
they could have made some unintentional mistake.

Cheers,
ithinc

[Alan Kwan]

Post by ithinc

Post by Alan Kwan
Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Maybe. But how could he date back to 1850s from these info?

The 1850 date is perhaps a mistake of /mine/. I couldn't find any date proposed
by Haibara in Asami's summaries, so I put in the one which was quoted as the
possible beginnings of mahjong. Sorry for that.

(I really need to study Haibara's original document, to see his sources
and justifications.)

Post by ithinc

Post by Alan Kwan

Post by ithinc
"Haishang fanhua meng"(Sun Jiazhen, 1898)
===========================================
50 dollars a base, 1/2 structure
The winning hand: RRR, 555B, WhWhWh 9999B 1B + 1B (Whether the Pung of
White is concealed or not, is Unspecified) (The tiles before a comma
is a melded set, the same hereafter)
The winner gone out by selfdraw.
Total = 496 hu, cutted to a limit(300 hu), no detailed scoring
procedure was given.

4 for R
2 for 5B
8 for Wh
32 for 9B
4 for all-pung hand
2 for single call (1B)
10 for winning
--
62 fu total
1 faan for R
1 faan for Wh
1 faan for Mixed One-Suit
62 x 8 = 496

I would give out a different scoring, 2 for selfdrawn plus 2 for
winning tile forming a major pair instead of your 4 for all-pung hand.
I think the author could had missed 1 double in his mind. I cannot
find any other example to validate Haibara's several 4 points' scoring
elements. If there're 2 pts for single wait, it's no reason not to
score for selfdrawn.

Yes, the point-counting shows a little disagreement here. But I still think
that All Triplets was around then (the texts named the pattern), and that
it began as a fu-pattern (even if not necessarily 4 points) and got inflated
to a faan-pattern later. This is because we see it listed as a 10-point pattern
in some later rules sets; we never see the same for Mixed One-Suit.

Post by ithinc

Post by Alan Kwan
This collection of novels do seem a lot more credible than the confused
"field notes" (which was not a rules document intentionally published as a
rules document) of a foreigner.

Yes, you finally agree that they could be reliable. But of course,
they could have made some unintentional mistake.

Well, when I saw the first one (about the corrupt officials),
I immediately recognized it as a reasonably accurate and detailed
account of the scoring of one hand. The omission of side settlements
might have been actual circumstance or just literary expression,
but what /was/ recorded was a recognizable rendering of (what I
would include in the classification of) Classical scoring.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by ithinc

Post by Alan Kwan
Probably, Haibara actually compiled his rules from these novels.

Maybe. But how could he date back to 1850s from these info?

The 1850 date is perhaps a mistake of /mine/. �I couldn't find any date proposed
by Haibara in Asami's summaries, so I put in the one which was quoted as the
possible beginnings of mahjong. �Sorry for that.

Hello Alan. Do you mean that in Asami's summaries, no period of time
was mentioned to which these rules applied?

(I really need to study Haibara's original document, to see his sources
and justifications.)

I would certainly be interested to read your account of these!

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hello Alan. Do you mean that in Asami's summaries, no period of time
was mentioned to which these rules applied?

None. The "1850" date came from another part of his document, which I hastily
attached to the rules.

Post by m***@aol.com

Post by Alan Kwan
(I really need to study Haibara's original document, to see his sources
and justifications.)

I would certainly be interested to read your account of these!

I'm asking Asami.

[Alan Kwan]

Special thanks to Asami for quoting Haibara's original article for me.

Haibara's rules were actually based on five *Chinese mahjong textbooks*
published around the 1910's:

「麻雀牌譜」「麻雀指南」「麻雀門径」「麻雀必勝術」「麻雀防弊法」

Hence, regardless of whether they accurately reflect the rules of an earlier
time, we can safely say that the rules are a rather accurate account of
the rules around the 1910's.

And side settlements were in these rules. Note that, up to this point,
there has not been any definite evidence (in the novels) to prove that
side settlements were indeed absent in the Late Q'ing period. Although
most of the novels did not mention side settlements, no one has identified
any passage in which the author 'need to' mention (should have mentioned)
side settlements for the purpose of his narration (namely, fictional
entertainment).

Perhaps we can wipe the "Late Q'ing" style off the chart now?
The novels are in agreement with Haibara's rules in almost everywhere,
and we don't have any good reason to believe that they are different
in that one aspect.

In other words, side settlements were originally present in mahjong rules
by the 1910's (and probably earlier), but gradually faded out with
the growing popularity of the discarder-double payoff scheme (or the
discarder-pay-all scheme in Japan), and also the eventual elimination of
triplet-point counting.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Alan Kwan
Special thanks to Asami for quoting Haibara's original article for me.
Haibara's rules were actually based on five *Chinese mahjong textbooks*
� ????????????????????????????????

Unfortunately I only get a row of question marks where (I presume)
chinese text was meant to be.

Thanks for this important piece of information. Are these Chinese
textbooks each mentioned by name? If so, are their respective authors
mentioned? Finally, are the dates of publication given for each book?

Cheers
Michael

[ithinc]

Post by Alan Kwan
Special thanks to Asami for quoting Haibara's original article for me.
Haibara's rules were actually based on five *Chinese mahjong textbooks*
����ȸ���V������ȸָ�ϡ�����ȸ�T��������ȸ�؄��g������ȸ��׷���
Hence, regardless of whether they accurately reflect the rules of an earlier
time, we can safely say that the rules are a rather accurate account of
the rules around the 1910's.

So, most of them are listed at: http://www.asamiryo.jp/lib3.html,
except the fifth. From this page, maybe it is more accurate to say
that they're around the 1920's.

ithinc

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Alan Kwan
Special thanks to Asami for quoting Haibara's original article for me.
Haibara's rules were actually based on five *Chinese mahjong textbooks*
� ????????????????????????????????
Hence, regardless of whether they accurately reflect the rules of an earlier
time, we can safely say that the rules are a rather accurate account of
the rules around the 1910's.

So, most of them are listed at:http://www.asamiryo.jp/lib3.html,
except the fifth. From this page, maybe it is more accurate to say
that they're around the 1920's.

Hmm. If this is the case, based on the information at the link above
(I cannot read Japanese so therefore I went by the dates listed), why
is the circa 1910 mentioned in Alan's reply above?

I don't hink Alan can be referring to the 1st five texts at that link,
can he? After all, the 5th book is dated 1923.

Cheers
Michael

[Cofa Tsui]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hmm. If this is the case, based on the information at the link above
(I cannot read Japanese so therefore I went by the dates listed), why
is the circa 1910 mentioned in Alan's reply above?
I don't hink Alan can be referring to the 1st five texts at that link,
can he? After all, the 5th book is dated 1923.

Post by Alan Kwan
「麻雀牌譜」「麻雀指南」「麻雀門径」「麻雀必勝術」「麻雀防弊法」

At a glance only the first one seems to have been mentioned before in
this group:
麻雀牌譜 [Maque Paipu (Maque Illustrated)]

Other four (about guides, road to, sure win strategies and fraud
defence) look very much like modern names to me.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMa

[Alan Kwan]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hmm. If this is the case, based on the information at the link above
(I cannot read Japanese so therefore I went by the dates listed), why
is the circa 1910 mentioned in Alan's reply above?

It's calculated from Haibara's text. He stated that the books were
published "about 40 years ago", in a passage published in 1952.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by m***@aol.com
Hmm. If this is the case, based on the information at the link above
(I cannot read Japanese so therefore I went by the dates listed), why
is the circa 1910 mentioned in Alan's reply above?

It's calculated from Haibara's text. �He stated that the books were
published "about 40 years ago", in a passage published in 1952.

Is there any mention in Haibara's text as to what those textbooks were
called? Any names etc? I gather there are no specific dates? I
wondered whether he had quotes in his text from those books. Anything
like that?

Cheers
Michael

[Alan Kwan]

Post by m***@aol.com
Is there any mention in Haibara's text as to what those textbooks were
called? Any names etc? I gather there are no specific dates? I
wondered whether he had quotes in his text from those books. Anything
like that?

He named the titles of the 5 books. Evidently, he studied the books and used
the information to reconstruct the rules, but there doesn't seem to be any
direct quotation from the books. The books were in Chinese and Haibara's
writing was in Japanese.

[m***@aol.com]

Post by m***@aol.com
Is there any mention in Haibara's text as to what those textbooks were
called? Any names etc? I gather there are no specific dates? I
wondered whether he had quotes in his text from those books. Anything
like that?

He named the titles of the 5 books. �Evidently, he studied the books and used
the information to reconstruct the rules, but there doesn't seem to be any
direct quotation from the books. �The books were in Chinese and Haibara's
writing was in Japanese.

That's great news Alan! Any chance I may have the titles of the five
books?

Cheers
Michael